Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 22nd February.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL

To be read a Second time upon Monday next.

CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

CHESHUNT URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL

CROSBY CORPORATION BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

ILFORD CORPORATION BILL

LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (LOANS) BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

LUTON CORPORATION BILL

To be read a second time Tomorrow.

MERSEY TUNNEL BILL

NUNEATON CORPORATION BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

POOLE CORPORATION BILL

SALFORD CORPORATION BILL

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

SANDOWN-SHANKLIN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

TAF FECHAN WATER SUPPLY BILL

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — LATVIAN ASSETS (CLAIMS)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the approximate amount of assets belonging to the State of Latvia held by the Custodian of Enemy Property; approximately what claims for compensation have been made by British nationals in respect of interests in Latvia; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to paying compensation to British interests out of assets held by Her Majesty's Government for Latvia.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Anthony Eden): The total of Latvian assets held by the Custodian of Enemy Property is between £3 million and £3¼ million. The total of United Kingdom claims arising in Latvian territory is estimated to amount to approximately £2¾ million. With regard to the third part of his Question, the hon. Member will know that the problem is an extremely complex one, which raises difficult legal and political issues. I can, however, assure him that the interests of the claimants are being kept in mind.

Mr. Fletcher: What progress is being made in this matter?

Sir A. Eden: I could not say, without going into the history of the case, with which I think the hon. Member is familiar. I can only say that we shall take any opportunity that offers itself to try to deal with the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Radio Station, Soviet Zone (Interference)

Mr. Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been made to the East German Government about the interference by their broadcasting station with the Welsh Regional Station; and whether he will make a statement.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on 8th November, 1954, to the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Cooper-Key). The matter of interference with the


B.B.C.'s Welsh, North of England and London Home Services was taken up formally with the Soviet High Commissioner in Germany by the United Kingdom High Commissioner in 29th October, 1954. In his reply, the Soviet High Commissioner stated that the matter had been settled by informal conversations between United Kingdom and East German broadcasting engineers. The conversations referred to have not led to any lessening of the interference, and a further formal approach was accordingly made to the Soviet High Commissioner on 20th January.

Mr. Watkins: Will the Minister be good enough to make a statement, following the representations which were made on 20th January, when the reply is received?

Mr. Turton: I will most certainly bear that point in mind.

Ex-Nazis (Employment)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take to prevent the recrudescence of Nazism in Germany resulting from the employment in a military capacity of ex-Nazis Major-General Arthur Brandt, Vincenz Mueller, and Bernhard Bechler.

Mr. Turton: These officers have for some years been employed in the East German armed forces. Her Majesty's Government are not able to control or influence developments in the Soviet Zone of Germany.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister inform the House whether these three were included among the 87 who made such a heart-rending appeal last week? Can he further explain the phenomenon of peace-loving ex-Nazi generals in East Germany and war-mongering ex-Nazi generals in West Germany?

Mr. Turton: I should like to see the first supplementary question on the Order Paper, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will put it down.

Mr. S. Silverman: Would not the easiest way of dealing with the matter in a manner satisfactory to all of us be to see that there were no German armed forces at all, and therefore no Nazi generals at the head of them—East or West?

Concentration Camps (Archives)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Her Majesty's Government agreed with the representatives of the Governments of the United States of America and France to hand over the archives of the former concentration camps to the Bonn Government.

Mr. Turton: Arrangements for the future of the International Tracing Service, which at present holds these archives, are still under negotiation between the United States, the United Kingdom, French, Belgian, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italian, Israeli and Federal German Governments. No agreement has yet been reached.

Mr. Lewis: While appreciating the fact that as yet these archives have not been handed back and that negotiations are still going on, may I ask whether the Minister will promise to do all he can to see that, if they eventually go back to the Bonn Government, they are preserved and not destroyed by that Government?

Mr. Turton: That is the purpose of these negotiations. The importance of these documents is very well understood by the Governments concerned.

Baron Herwarth (Appointment)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the West German Ambassador-designate to London is Heinz Heinrich von Herwarth, that this man served in the German Foreign Ministry during the entire Nazi period, and that from 1939 to 1945 he was liaison officer of the German Foreign Ministry with the Nazi Army; and whether he will inform the Bonn Government that this man would be unacceptable to the British Government as a German Ambassador, in view of his past associations with the Nazis.

Sir Anthony Eden: Her Majesty's Government informed the German Federal Government on 12th January, 1955, that the appointment of Baron Herwarth is agreeable to them.

Mr. Lewis: Can the Foreign Secretary say whether or not the points contained in the Question are correct, whether this man has past Nazi connections, and if so, can he—in this instance, at any rate, even


if he cannot do anything about East German Nazis—do something to stop this growth of Nazism?

Sir A. Eden: I cannot take responsibility for what the hon. Gentleman says in his Question. The position, as I understand it, is that this gentleman was a member of the German Foreign Office and served in the German Army in the war. I am also informed that at no time was he a member of the Nazi Party.

Mr. J. Hynd: Is it not true that this gentleman was associated with, or suspected of being associated with, the attempt on the life of Hitler in 1944, and that his immediate chief in the same service was executed for his part in that plot?

Sir A. Eden: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right and that we have no reason to do other than welcome the appointment.

Mr. Paget: Is it possible for anybody to have experience in Government service unless he serves under the Government?

British Troops

Mr. Parkin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it was decided, as announced by a Foreign Office spokesman to the French Government at Christmas, that Her Majesty's Government would feel free to withdraw British troops from Germany In the event of the French Parliament failing to ratify the Paris Agreements.

Mr. Turton: The Foreign Office statement of 24th December did not say that Her Majesty's Government would feel free to withdraw British troops from Germany in the event of the French Parliament failing to ratify the Paris Agreements. The question, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. Parkin: Would the Minister agree that it is most unfortunate that Press reports should give the impression that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in agreeing to British troops in Germany was solely concerned with defending the French against the Germans?

Mr. Turton: The papers I read carried the Foreign Office statement quite accurately.

Rearmament

Mr. Parkin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it was decided, as announced by a Foreign Office spokesman to the French Government at Christmas, that the policy of Her Majesty's Government was that Germany should be rearmed in any case, irrespective of any guarantees or alliances that could be arranged.

Mr. Turton: The Foreign Office statement of 24th December did not say that Germany should be rearmed irrespective of any guarantees or alliances that could be arranged. The Question therefore does not arise.

Mr. Parkin: Would it be possible, when next bullying the French Government—if any—in this matter, for the communications to be made in a more normal manner than they appear to have been made last time?

Mr. Turton: The statement made in this case was that the rejection of the Paris Agreements
would not mean that German rearmament would not take place. The issue is not whether the German Federal Republic will rearm, but how.
The need for a West German contribution to Western defence was accepted by all the N.A.T.O. Governments, including the Labour Government of the United Kingdom in 1950.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what additional formalities must now be completed before the agreements relating to German rearmament are finally ratified by Her Majestys' Government.

Mr. Turton: The only formal step now required before ratification by deposit of the Instruments is their signature by Her Majesty The Queen. The necessary documents are being prepared for signature.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: The news that the Paris Agreements have not yet been ratified by Her Majesty's Government will be welcomed by very many people. Does the Joint Under-Secretary agree that recent events in France and the shift of opinion in Germany make the future of these agreements rather doubtful, and will he, in those circumstances, take advantage of the breathing space so provided to institute four-Power talks.

Mr. Turton: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.N. ORGANISATIONS (CONTRIBUTIONS)

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the total annual amount paid by Her Majesty's Government to organisations sponsored by the United Nations; if he will give a list showing each organisation and the amount contributed; and if he will state how these contributions compare with those of other nations.

Mr. Younger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the total sum contributed by Her Majesty's Government, for the latest year for which complete figures are available, to organisations sponsored by the United Nations; and if he will list the contributions to each organisation, together with the proportion of the total budget which this represents in each case.

Mr. Turton: The total United Kingdom contribution to the United Nations, the Specialised Agencies and the Extra-Budgetary Funds for 1954 was approximately £10,340,000. No other Government, except the United States of America, contributed so much. As a detailed statement of our contribution to these organisations, and of its proportion of their total budgets, is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Wing Commander Bullus: Would not my hon. Friend agree that this country is playing a marked and major part in the support of these organisations, despite our own large contributions to colonial development?

Mr. Turton: I would most certainly agree with that. I think that if my hon. Friend looks at the proportions of the total budgets paid by Her Majesty's Government, he will see that in many cases it is a very high proportion.

Mr. Younger: Would not the hon. Gentleman also agree that it is no more than our duty to play a large part, but just how large that part should be is a matter for argument?

Mr. Turton: I also entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman.

Following is the statement:


Organisation
U.K. Contribution in 1954
Proportion of total budget




Per cent.


United Nations
1,360,942
9·80


World Health Organisation
340,964
10·74


U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
373,051
11·04


Food and Agriculture Organisation
223,813
10·52


International Labour Organisation
277,069
12·79


International Civil Aviation Organisation
90,416
9·80


World Meteorological Organisation
6,990
5·83


International Telecommunications Union (approx.)
28,200
5·98


Universal Postal Union
3,915
2·73


Expanded Technical Assistance Programme
650,000
7·28


U.N. International Children's Emergency Fund
200,000
4·32*


U.N. Relief and Works Agency (for the year ended 30th June, 1954)
1,785,714
22·22


U.N. Korean Reconstruction Agency (for year ended 30th June, 1954)
5,000,000
42·00


* U.N.I.C.E.F. depends in part on voluntary contributions. The percentage given is based on governmental contributions only.

Oral Answers to Questions — FORMOSA

New Zealand Declaration

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the statement issued by the Government of New Zealand on the question of the United States intervention in the Formosa dispute, if he will now issue a similar declaration.

Sir Anthony Eden: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the statement made by the Prime Minister of New Zealand in New York on 24th January. My statement to this House on 26th January was couched in similar terms. As the House will be aware, Her Majesty's Government gave full support to the New Zealand Government's subsequent initiative in the Security Council.

Mr. Lewis: While thanking the Foreign Secretary and appreciating the tone of


his reply, may I ask if he is aware that the New Zealand Prime Minister did, in fact, state categorically that the New Zealand Government and people would not be parties to any dispute about or take part in any war in connection with Formosa? The Foreign Secretary was not quite so categorical. Can he now make a similar statement?

Sir A. Eden: The quotation I have of the speech by the New Zealand Prime Minister and the statement which I made are, I think, almost exactly the same. If the hon. Gentleman likes to compare them, I shall be quite ready to do so with him.

Civilian Refugees

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in order that our representative at the Security Council may be adequately informed, he will seek information from the United Nations Organisation as to the number of civilian refugees from the Chinese mainland who are living on Formosa.

Mr. Turton: The United Nations Organisation will not possess this information as Chinese nationals from the mainland who are now living on Formosa do not fall within the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. They are not refugees within the terms of the "Convention relating to the Status of Refugees" made in Geneva in 1951. There are, to the best of our information, about a million such nationals.

Mr. Henderson: Can the Joint Under-Secretary say what proportion this number bears to the total population of Formosa?

Mr. Turton: About 10 per cent.

Consular Officers

Mr. Bing: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why exequaturs were not applied for in respect of Her Majesty's present Consul and Her Majesty's present Vice-Consul at Tamsui in Formosa.

Sir Anthony Eden: In normal circumstances, exequaturs are applied for by the diplomatic representative accredited to the Government of the State in whose territory the consular officer is to function. In

the case of Formosa, we have no such diplomatic representative.

Mr. Bing: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that exequaturs from the Republic of China were applied for and obtained for their consular officers by the United States, and, in these circumstances, should he not draw the attention of the United States Government to the difference in views on the law between the British and United States Governments?

Sir A. Eden: I was asked what our own position was, and I have given the answer.

Cairo and Potsdam Declarations

Mr. Bing: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the date upon which Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom considered they were no longer bound by the Cairo and Potsdam declarations as to the future of Formosa; and the dates upon which this decision was communicated to each of the other Governments parties to these declarations.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government on the implementation of the policy on Formosa agreed at the Cairo Conference in 1943; and what communications on this subject have been made to the Central People's Government of China.

Sir Anthony Eden: The policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Cairo Declaration was fully explained to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 1st February. There have been no communications on this subject with the Government of the People's Republic of China. The Potsdam Declaration laid down as conditions for the Japanese that they should carry out the terms of the Cairo Declaration. Japan complied by formally renouncing all title to Formosa in the Japanese Peace Treaty.

Mr. Bing: is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government of the United States consider Formosa to be an integral part of Chinese territory; that, on that basis, they have concluded a treaty with China which they recognise; and that they do that on the basis of the


Cairo Declaration? Is the right hon. Gentleman now telling the House that the American Treaty is invalid?

Sir A. Eden: No, Sir; my position is exactly the same in this matter as that of the late Government, which was very clearly expressed by the then Foreign Secretary in May, 1951, when he said:
The question of Formosa will, however, come up in the context of the Japanese Peace Treaty. Our aim here is to secure an early Peace Treaty without allowing the difficult issue of Formosa to delay its negotiation and without attempting in the Treaty to find a final solution to an issue which must be given careful consideration later in the general context of the Far Eastern situation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 2302.]
That is still the position of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Driberg: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement on Friday, in which he said that the status of Formosa was uncertain, and in view of the terms of the Treaty between the Americans and the Chinese Nationalists, in which Formosa is described by inference as an integral part of China, is it not clear that there is a serious difference of opinion on this matter between Washington and London?

Sir A. Eden: No, Sir; that is not so. The position of all countries in this respect is the same. It is that, at the time of the negotiations for the San Francisco Treaty, it was not possible to dispose of Formosa. Had it been possible to agree on the future of Formosa, it would have been included in the Treaty. As it was not possible to decide that, all that the Treaty did was to say that Japanese rights were ceded. That is the position of all the signatories to the Treaty of San Francisco.

Mr. Shinwell: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the present context has made a change in the situation, as contrasted with the time when the Japanese Treaty was signed in San Francisco? In these circumstances, might it not go a long way to satisfy the Chinese People's Government if a firm declaration were made by the right hon. Gentleman that Formosa, whether now or in the future, but at some time, and perhaps as a result of negotiations or some arrangement made between the parties, is an integral part of China and therefore comes under the control of the Chinese People's Government?

Sir A. Eden: I think the position is as I stated in reply to the right hon. Gentleman on Friday. It is equally right to say that none of the signatories has ever said that the islands are never to be ceded to China. What they did say was that they could not agree at the time of the San Francisco Treaty. They agreed on the first part of the operation, which was that Japan surrendered her rights, without allocating the islands. Perhaps I might make one more quotation from the late Government, because this is exactly the point made on 14th December, 1950, when the then Foreign Secretary said:
But it has to be said that there is a great strategic conflict. It is no use disguising that. There are great problems associated with Formosa, and I shall not come down in a dogmatic way and say that we will do this, that or the other."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 1462.]

Mr. Paget: Is not the truth of the situation that the Cairo Declaration was, in fact, performed in 1945? The Cairo Declaration was that Formosa was Chinese territory, and the Potsdam Declaration and the Japanese surrender terms say that that Declaration should be performed. It was performed by handing over to the then Chinese Government, and, from 1945 onwards, it has been part of China?

Sir A. Eden: I am afraid that is not so. The position in law is that an armistice or the cessation of fighting does not affect sovereignty. There has not been a transfer of sovereignty because, at San Francisco, although there was a desire to agree about China, there was a difference of opinion as to which Chinese authority it should be handed over.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNCIL OF EUROPE (HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is proposed that this country will declare its acceptance of the clause about right of individual petition in the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Mr. Turton: Her Majesty's Government do not propose to make such a declaration.

Mr. Hynd: Can the Minister give some explanation of why we took up that attitude? Would it not be a nice thing to give a lead to other countries in this matter?

Mr. Turton: Her Majesty's Government take the view that States are the proper subject of international law; and that if individuals are given rights under international treaties, effect should be given to these rights through the national law of the States parties. The matter was discussed in 1949 and 1950, when hon. Members on both sides of the House took that view.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA

Coastal Islands

Mr. A. J. Irvine: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what mention was made in approaches recently made to the Soviet Government regarding the situation in the Far East of the desirability of a truce to facilitate the evacuation of the Tachen Islands and of the Soviet Government conveying their view on this matter to the Chinese Government.

Sir Anthony Eden: Her Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow saw the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr. Molotov, on 28th January. He stressed Her Majesty's Government's grave concern over the situation which was developing in the area of the Chinese coastal islands, and expressed the hope that the Soviet Government would feel able to urge restraint on the Chinese and above all the importance of avoiding any incidents which might lead to general hostilities. He did not make specific reference to the evacuation of the Tachen islands. Since that date, I have seen the Soviet Chargé d'Affaires in London and Mr. Molotov has seen Her Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow. I have, however, no statement to make on those conversations at present.

Mr. Irvine: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, may I ask if he does not agree that it is a desirable immediate objective to facilitate the evacuation of these islands; that it is important if, as the Soviet Government are reported to have indicated, no objection would be raised to the evacuation? Would he further agree that similar circumstances apply to Quemoy and Matsu?

Sir A. Eden: As I have indicated by my answer, conversations are taking place between a number of Governments in this matter. I think that diplomacy must be given its chance to do some work and that I would not help matters along were I to try to follow the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Strachey: As the Foreign Secretary has now said that these islands do belong to China, is it not the Nationalist forces, in failing to evacuate them, who are causing the danger of war, rather than—as he said in his former answer—the Chinese forces, who intend to reoccupy what he now agrees are their own islands?

Sir A. Eden: There are some Questions later on the Order Paper on these legal matters. I would only say that everyone's interpretation of these matters, and other nations', is not precisely the same.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further information Her Majesty's Government have received from the United States Government of their intentions as regards the Tachen Islands and the islands of Quemoy and Matsu.

Sir Anthony Eden: Since my statement of 26th January, the evacuation of the Tachens has begun. Her Majesty's Government share the hope expressed by the United States Government that these steps will contribute to a cessation of Communist attacks and to the restoration of peace and security in the West Pacific.

Mr. Henderson: The right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the two islands of Quemoy and Matsu. Will he say anything about those?

Sir A. Eden: I have no further statement to make upon that subject.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman a few days ago—when he said that the first concern of Her Majesty's Government was to stop the fighting—will he express the hope that the United States Government will at least consult Her Majesty's Government before taking any action in the defence of the islands of Matsu and Quemoy on the ground that they are essential to the defence of Formosa?

Sir A. Eden: We are, of course, in close consultation with the United States Government and with other Governments all


the time, as my earlier answers have indicated. As I said last week, we did our best to bring about a cessation of the fighting by inviting the Chinese Communist Government—in the most considerate terms which could be worded—to attend a meeting of the Security Council. I deplore the fact that in abrupt tones that invitation was flatly turned down. It is now the task of Governments to try to work out other methods to bring about a cease-fire in this area. Only when cease-fire conditions are established can we hope to proceed with other methods of pacification.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would it not be of material help in the present situation if the United States Government were to indicate that they did not intend to retain Quemoy and Matsu under their forces; that they were in favour of the withdrawal of Nationalist troops from those islands as well as the Tachens, and that this would be the best step towards the ultimate neutralisation of Formosa—which the Labour Party has always stood for?

Sir A. Eden: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, many other considerations would have to be borne in mind before I could give him an answer of that kind. I really think that what I have already said to the House is, in all the circumstances, as far as I can go today. The House really must have confidence that we are doing everything in our power—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—to bring about a cease-fire, and I should have thought that the reply of the Communist Government to the Security Council's invitation might have had some criticism from some hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Younger: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that in his own description of the legal situation he has drawn no distinction between the Tachen Islands and Quemoy and Matsu? He has put them into the same category. Since they also appear to be in the same category from the point of view of danger of fighting—because they are just as near the Chinese coast—does not he think that it might be advisable for the United States Government to follow the same policy with regard to Quemoy and Matsu as they are following with regard to the Tachen Islands?

Sir A. Eden: I do not want to express any opinions about what I have already

said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because I do not think that I should be helping the cause of peace if I were to do so. [Interruption.] As nobody knows better than the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), this situation has existed for a very considerable period of years, and how I handle my answers now may have a very considerable effect upon it. I am not going to say a further word about these islands today.

Mr. Strachey: As the right hon. Gentleman has now declared roundly that these islands belong to China, surely it would be helpful to the peace of the world and the promotion of a cease-fire—which is his objective—if he were to say that it was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government—even if the American Government could not agree—that the Nationalist forces should evacuate these islands as they are fortunately evacuating the Tachens?

Sir A. Eden: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that it would help matters if I were to say that this is the view of Her Majesty's Government, though the United States Government take a different view? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] In this particular context? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I think that we should do far better to try to get agreement between all concerned.

Mr. Gaitskell: May we at least take it that Her Majesty's Government's policy in this matter is based upon the distinction between the islands off the coast of China and Formosa and the Pescadores which was drawn by the Foreign Secretary himself earlier on?

Sir A. Eden: That distinction is not exclusive to ourselves. It was made by the Canadian Government, and I think that it has been expressed several times by the United States Government. It is certainly our view and is known publicly by everybody to be so.

Mr. Bevan: Has it not been said by the President of the United States that he considers it is in the interests of peace that there should be no ambiguity as to where commitments lie? Would it not, therefore, be in the interests of peace that we ourselves should not be ambiguous about what we consider to be our interests in this part of the world? Would the right hon. Gentleman not be serving


the interests of peace if he indicated to the United States what we considered to be the status of these islands?

Sir A. Eden: That is precisely what I have done. The right hon. Gentleman who was formerly Minister of Defence very reasonably asked whether I would put down on paper the legal position in respect of these islands. I have done so, and the whole world can see what is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government. That is proclaimed, and there it stands.

Mr. Foot: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what government is recognised by Her Majesty's Government as the government, de jure or de facto, of the Tachen Islands, Matsu and Quemoy.

Mr. W. Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the claim of the People's Government of China made to the United Nations Organisation to take possession of the offshore islands such as Quemoy and Matsu.

Sir Anthony Eden: I have nothing to add to the statement I made on 4th February in answer to a Question by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).

Mr. Foot: In view of the fact that the reply makes it clear that in the view of Her Majesty's Government the islands referred to in the Question are undisputably territory which belongs to the Chinese People's Republic, can the Foreign Secretary say what representations he has made to the American Government in view of a resolution passed by the American Congress which arrogates to the American Government the right to make dispositions of territory which the British Government claim to belong to the people of China?

Sir A. Eden: The terms of the resolution would not answer to the hon. Gentleman's description. I have dealt earlier with the topic of such conversations, and they have been many, which we have had with the United States Government and other Governments during the last few days, and I have made it clear to the House that I cannot in conducting negotiations of this kind undertake to make statements while discussions are proceeding, and I will not do so.

Mr. Griffiths: If the Foreign Secretary could definitely state on Friday that in Her Majesty's Government view these islands undoubtedly form part of the territory of the Peoples' Republic of China, surely he can pluck up his courage sufficiently to say this clearly and categorically to the United States Government and to the Chinese authorities of Formosa, and tell them both that if they get into a military adventure in this quarter Britain will have nothing to do with it?

Sir A. Eden: I thought it useful, desirable and in the international interest to make a full statement in reply to the Question which the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Defence put down.

Mr. Griffiths: In a written reply on Friday.

Sir A. Eden: Does the hon. Gentleman think that I am frightened to make it on any other day; is that the idea? The reason that it was a written answer was because the right hon. Gentleman courteously in his original Question said, "If I put down a Written Question, will the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer?" Of course, I gave him an answer to his original Question in a written form, and I thought that the best way of making clear our decision to the world. I have nothing to abstract from what I said in that answer, and nothing to add to it at present.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I put down this Question while I was away, and as he would not be able to answer it orally it was necessary to get the information in some other way? May I ask him, although hon. Members on both sides of the House appreciate that while engaged in delicate negotiations and conversations he may not be able to go further than he has done, if he will take note of the views expressed on this side of the House?

Sir A. Eden: I hope that I am conscious of the views expressed in all parts of the House, and it was because of that that I felt that clarification in Friday's statement on the purely legal side was desirable. With regard to the political side, which is that which must be discussed between Governments, it is that on which I cannot make a statement while the discussions are proceeding.

United Nations Resolution

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that the Resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly on 8th December, 1949, calling on all States to respect the right of the people of China to choose freely their political institutions and calling on all States also to refrain from seeking to acquire spheres of influence or to create foreign-controlled régimes within the territory of China, remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Turton: Yes, Sir.

Mrs. Castle: In view of the Foreign Secretary's statement last Friday that Quemoy and Matsu undoubtedly form part of Chinese territory, would not Her Majesty's Government agree that the declaration by the Chinese Nationalists this weekend, that they intend to continue to occupy Quemoy and Matsu, is a violation of the United Nations Resolution which the Government support, and that it makes the Chinese Nationalist Government aggressors in this area? Will the Government continue to press this point of view in the United Nations?

Mr. Turton: The position is that Her Majesty's Government will support any attempt by the people of China to choose their political institutions by peaceful and democratic methods, and regard any attempt to impose a régime by force as a threat to peace.

Situation

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further progress he has made in respect of the situation in South-East China.

Sir Anthony Eden: As the House knows, the Chinese Government have refused the invitation which was tendered to them by the Security Council to participate in the Council's discussion. The invitation had been supported by nine members including the United States. Her Majesty's Government much regret both the matter and the manner of this decision. They remain concerned at the situation and their aim is still to stop the fighting before it can spread any further. Her Majesty's Government are in close and constant touch with other interested Governments, especially those

of the Commonwealth, but I am not yet in a position to say what further action we intend to take.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the general question offer an opportunity to the Foreign Secretary to explain the previous situation, and may I ask him whether he appreciates that the operative word is "progress" and, in those circumstances, can he assure the House that progress is being made?

Sir A. Eden: I should have thought that would have been derived from the announcement in today's Press.

Captain Duncan: Does my right hon. Friend realise that, although we on this side of the House have been very quiet this afternoon, he has the full confidence of this side?

Mr. Strachey: If the Foreign Secretary cannot make any further statement now than that which he has given in his answer to my hon. Friend, what would he think of a foreign statesman who at the time the Germans were in occupation of the Channel Islands had said, "Of course these Channel Islands undoubtedly belong to Britain, but Britain will be guilty of causing a war if she attempts to reoccupy them?"

Sir A. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman, as a member of the late Government, knows perfectly well all the circumstances in respect of these islands, and I think that he should, if I may say so with respect, support the Government at a time like this in not being willing to say what they are doing so long as they are in the midst of negotiations.

Mr. A. Henderson: While appreciating that the right hon. Gentleman cannot say very much at the moment, can he reassure the House on this one point, that the presence of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers in London has made it advantageous to consult them on this very difficult topic?

Sir A. Eden: It certainly has been most advantageous and these discussions are not yet concluded, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, which is an additional reason why I think I am justified in asking the House to show some forbearance today.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.S.S.R. (DETAINED BRITISH SUBJECTS)

Captain Kerby: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what efforts his Department has made to date to trace the present whereabouts and obtain the release of a British subject named Chapman, whose imprisonment in a Soviet prison camp in northern Siberia in July, 1954, was brought to the notice of his Department recently.

Mr. Turton: A man known as John (or Charles) Chapman is reported to have been imprisoned at Vorkuta, in the Soviet Union. Her Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow has recently made representations to the Soviet Government both on his behalf and on that of 10 other persons who are believed to be British subjects in Soviet prisons. The Soviet Government have undertaken to look into the matter.

Captain Kerby: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I ask him whether the Foreign Office hopes to obtain the release of Mr. Robert Ford, another British subject, now entering his fifth year as a prisoner in a Chinese gaol?

Mr. Turton: That would appear to be a different question, relating to the Chinese People's Republic.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA (ARRESTED INTERPRETER)

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement concerning the arrest by the Soviet authorities in Vienna of Dr. Sokolovski, a Vienna municipal councillor, who has been recognised by the Soviet authorities during the past 10 years as senior Russian interpreter for the city council, in the course of his duties in that capacity.

Mr. Turton: Dr. Alfred Sokolovski, a senior municipal official and chief interpreter of the Vienna Town Council, was detained on 15th January this year during a routine visit to the Soviet Headquarters in Vienna. On 20th January, the Federal Chancellor formally protested to the Soviet High Commissioner about the fact and the manner of the detention. This protest was rejected on the grounds

that Dr. Sokolovski was a Soviet citizen and a deserter from the Red Army.

Mr. Hynd: Does this not raise an entirely new situation, in which an emissary of one governmental authority, who has been recognised by another governmental authority for 10 years, has been arrested by the second authority when on an official mission to it? Are the Government considering the implications of this action on the future possibilities of maintaining official contacts in this territory?

Mr. Turton: It is quite clear that this detention is a very unpleasant reminder of the continuing Russian occupation of Austrian territory, but, unless the matter is brought to the notice of the Allied Council by the Austrian Government, Her Majesty's Government do not propose to take any action.

Oral Answers to Questions — FAR EAST

s.s. "Edendale" (Attack)

Mr. D. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received a reply from the Chinese Nationalist Government to his protest concerning the sinking of the British ship, s.s. "Edendale."

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what steps he proposes to take to obtain adequate compensation for the loss of the s.s. "Edendale" at Swatow; and
(2) what information he has about the type, make, and country of origin of the aircraft which attacked and sank the s.s. "Edendale."

Sir Anthony Eden: As stated by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary on 26th January, Her Majesty's Consul delivered a note of protest on the 22nd January to the Provincial Authorities in Formosa. Her Majesty's Consul addressed a further letter to the Provincial authorities on the 29th January, giving further details and pointing out that the ship was prominently marked with the British Flag and the attacking aircraft could not, therefore, have failed to identify the ship as British. In an interview with the Provincial Governor about the incident, Her Majesty's Consul


was informed that his protest had been passed to the Central authorities in Formosa.
When the owners of the "Edendale" have provided full details of their claim for compensation, appropriate action will be taken by Her Majesty's Government to lodge a claim with the Nationalist Provincial authorities. I have received no reports about the type or make of the aircraft which attacked the "Edendale." The aircraft were plainly identified as belonging to the Chinese Nationalists and the full responsibility for the incident must rest with them.

Mr. Healey: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of that reply, can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that he has sought an assurance from the American Government that aircraft which the United States has supplied to the Nationalist forces in Formosa will not be used for attacks on the Chinese mainland, which will involve similar risks to British ships?

Sir A. Eden: I do not see why the hon. Gentleman should say that my reply is unsatisfactory. I made representations at once, on all the information which I had available, to the Formosa authorities. When I get the "Edendale" claim, I will certainly lodge that claim as soon as possible with the authorities and ask that it should be met. On the wider matter, certainly representations on the general aspect of bombing in that area have been made, and no doubt will be made when required.

Sir L. Plummer: Will the Foreign Secretary consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to see what representations can be made to British shipowners that crews sailing in British ships in these waters should now be paid danger money?

Sir A. Eden: I will speak to my right hon. Friend about that.

Non-Intervention Pact

Mr. Snow: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the civil war now being waged in the China seas, Her Majesty's Government will propose to the Powers immediately interested the making of a non-intervention pact of a type similar to that

originally proposed to be applied during the Spanish civil war.

Mr. Turton: No, Sir.

Mr. Bing: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he should address to the Government of the United States the same plea for moderation as he saw fit to address to the Chinese Government in regard to their conduct of the islands, at least of the inshore islands?

Mr. Turton: That does not seem to have anything to do with the non-intervention pact.

Mr. Bellenger: May I ask the hon. Gentleman, who has been in this House for some time, whether he recollects that this non-intervention pact mentioned in the Question was the signal for a free-for-all on the part of various other countries to interfere in some other country's civil war?

Mr. Turton: That is why my right hon. Friend did not feel that this suggestion would help to stop the fighting and make for peace.

British Ships (Attacks)

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British ships have suffered damage as a result of attacks made upon them by assailants known or suspected to have come from Formosa, the Pescadores, the islands of Quemoy, Matsu or the Tachens since 1st January, 1952.

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of attacks on British ships in the last 12 months to the most recent convenient date which have been made by the forces engaged in the Chinese civil war; and the number which, on investigation, have been found to be due to the forces of General Chiang Kai-shek, and those due to the forces of the Chinese Government.

Mr. Foot: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on how many occasions in the past four years protests have been made to the authorities in Formosa about attacks on British ships.

Sir Anthony Eden: Full details of cases of interference were given to the House on 22nd November. Since that date, the only case has been that of the s.s. "Edendale." In addition, I have received reports of three cases of minor damage


which have happened since 1952 as a result of Nationalist interference but the damage was apparently so slight that the owners have not put forward claims for compensation. As stated on 22nd November, protests have been made by H.M. Consul at Tamsui and by H.M. Chargé d'Affaires at Peking in all cases where it was evident that there was improper interference with British ships and responsibility for the interference could be established.

Sir L. Plummer: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of that reply and the number of incidents which have taken place, and in view of the tension in this part of the world, he would consider calling another Nyon Conference to protect our ships from these acts of piracy?

Sir A. Eden: This is not on all fours with the situation then. If the hon. Gentleman would like me to discuss the Nyon Agreement I will do so, but not at this moment. We have put in certain claims and some have been met and some not, and we shall continue to pursue our claims.

Mr. Foot: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in how many of these cases representations have also been made to the United States Government about the matter, particularly in view of his own legal interpretation of the situation in Formosa, which apparently means that the real authorities are not Chiang Kai-shek but the American authorities?

Sir A. Eden: I should want notice of that.

Mr. Dugdale: Will the Foreign Secretary give instructions, or say whether such have been given, that all British ships in the neighbourhood of Formosa should be clearly marked so as to reduce their chances of being attacked, as was done in the case of the Spanish Civil War?

Sir A. Eden: I understand that instructions in that sense have been issued, but I will make sure.

Oral Answers to Questions — A.N.Z.U.S. AND MANILA TREATIES

Mr. S. Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken by the United Kingdom to ensure that her freedom of

action is reserved in all cases where the Dominions of Australia and New Zealand are drawn into hostilities arising from membership of the A.N.Z.U.S. Pact.

Sir Anthony Eden: None, Sir.

Mr. Silverman: Is not this a highly anomalous and wholly unprecedented situation, in that two Dominions owing equal allegiance to the Crown and to ourselves are bound in an agreement with foreign States to which this country is not a party? Does the right hon. Gentleman then say, if no arrangements have been made to preserve our freedom of action, that in those circumstances this country might be dragged into a war of which it did not approve, and, perhaps, on the wrong side?

Mr. H. Fraser: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) just said that New Zealand owed equal allegiance to the Crown and to ourselves. Surely, he is entirely misinformed on that point?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Sir A. Eden: The position is that the A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, was not negotiated during the life of this Government, and I should have thought that was relevant to the accusations the hon. Member is making. I would add that, since the Manila Treaty has been signed, the larger part of the area covered by the A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty is now covered by the Manila agreement. Therefore, we are much nearer on a like footing to Australia and New Zealand than we were a few years ago, and I am sure that is something which will be welcomed by the hon. Gentleman and by the whole House. I can see no circumstances in which if Australia or New Zealand were involved in danger, Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom would not be at their side.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reference to these arrangements having been effected not in the lifetime of the present Government but in the lifetime of the late Government, is he aware that it was not the fault of the late Government that we were not included in the A.N.Z.U.S. Pact?

Sir A. Eden: I was not indicting the right hon. Gentleman's Government. I was merely pointing out that still less was it the fault of Her Majesty's present advisers.

Mr. Shinwell: Then why did the right hon. Gentleman make reference to the contrast between the late Government and the present Government? May I ask him whether he has any thoughts of a positive character on this subject? Does he think that we should be included in the A.N.Z.U.S. Pact?

Sir A. Eden: I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman, like the whole House, will be prepared to agree that it is now better than it was in the lifetime of the late Administration.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: In view of the broadcast by Sir Oliver Franks, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that it is not the fault of Australia or of New Zealand that we are not in the A.N.Z.U.S. Pact?

Sir A. Eden: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would put that one down.

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Silverman: On a point of order. I thought that this Question was of some importance on which I should indeed be allowed to ask one supplementary question on answers which, I think, require further elucidation. Since then, Mr. Speaker, some three or four Privy Councillors have exercised their right to intervene. May I not now ask my supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman did ask a supplementary, and several other supplementaries have been asked by other right hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House. We must really give other hon. Members who have Questions on the Paper a chance to have them answered.

Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order. Is there any rule of the House, Mr. Speaker, or any Standing Order, which precludes a Privy Councillor from asking supplementary questions?

Mr. Speaker: There is not, but, naturally, if supplementary questions are asked by right hon. Gentlemen it would involve an undue allocation of time to one Question were I to continue it.

Mr. Silverman: Further to that point of order. May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that I no longer have any opportunity of consultations with my right hon. Friends, and that therefore there is absolutely no guarantee that the supplementary questions which they ask on my Question will have anything to do with what I want to raise?

Mr. Speaker: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. I am in the same position; I have no method of consultation either.

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the danger of extension of hostilities in the Far East, what further representations he has made to the Governments of the United States of America, Australia and New Zealand as to the exclusion of the United Kingdom from participating in or consultation by the A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty Powers.

Sir Anthony Eden: Her Majesty's Government have made no representations since the hon. Member last raised this subject. The United Kingdom is now of course associated in the Manila Treaty with the United States, Australia and New Zealand, among other Powers.

Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Manila Treaty does not cover Formosa but that the A.N.Z.U.S. Pact does, and in view of the obligations of Australia and New Zealand who were very anxious that we should join the A.N.Z.U.S. Pact under that Treaty, and in view of the fact that that Treaty could involve military operations and of his statement today that he cannot conceive any situation in which Australia and New Zealand would be involved in military obligations without British participation, does not that mean that the decision as to British participation has virtually been taken in Washington?

Sir A. Eden: Not at all. The terms of the A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty in point of fact are not as definite as the hon. Gentleman suggests. If he will look at the obligations which the two Powers have under the A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty, he will see that they are in fact limited.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the answer which he has just given and the answer which he gave to a previous Question on the Order


Paper, that the Manila Treaty has in fact been replaced by the A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty, and, therefore, this country would be involved in any conflict that might arise out of the obligations to which we were originally no
t a party?

Sir A. Eden: I did not say anything remotely like that. I did say that the Manila Treaty covers a large part of the area covered by the A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty and the terms of obligation in point of fact under the two treaties are similar and not perhaps as binding as the hon. Gentleman who asked the original Question thought they were.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would the right hon. Gentleman, for the convenience of hon. Members, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the relevant parts of the A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty?

Sir A. Eden: I shall be very glad to circulate the obligations under the A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty and the Manila Treaty.

Following are the relevant Articles:

(A) The A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty (1st September, 1951)

ARTICLE II

In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty the Parties separately and jointly by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

ARTICLE III

The Parties will consult together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened in the Pacific.

ARTICLE IV

Each Party recognises that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

ARTICLE V

For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on any of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of any of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.

(B) South-East Asia Collective Defence Treaty (8th September, 1954)

ARTICLE II

In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack and to prevent and counter subversive activities directed from without against their territorial integrity and political stability.

ARTICLE IV

1. Each Party recognises that aggression by means of armed attack in the treaty area against any of the Parties or against any State or territory which the Parties by unanimous agreement may hereafter designate, would endanger its own peace and safety, and agrees that it will in that event act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes. Measures taken under this paragraph shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations.

ARTICLE VIII

As used in this Treaty, the "treaty area" is the general area of South-East Asia, including also the entire territories of the Asian Parties, and the general area of the South-West Pacific not including the Pacific area north of 21 degrees 30 minutes north latitude. The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, amend this Article to include within the treaty area the territory of any State acceding to this Treaty in accordance with Article VII or otherwise to change the treaty area.

HONG KONG (SHIP-REPAIR FACILITIES)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give an assurance that facilities will not be made available at Hong Kong for the repair or refuelling of any warship engaged in operations against the territory or forces controlled by the Central People's Government of China.

Mr. Turton: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) on 4th February.

Mr. Driberg: Does that negative reply mean that, despite the vulnerable position of Hong Kong in relation to the mainland of China, the hon. Gentleman is prepared to concede to American interventionist warships facilities which were refused by his right hon. Friends even to civilian refugees on the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War?

Mr. Turton: I wish to make it quite clear that Hong Kong offers normal repair and fuelling facilities to all ships in a friendly way. Any ship in distress will receive help from Hong Kong.

Mr. Bevan: Is this not an exceedingly dangerous and provocative action against the Peking Government? Is it not a fact that we are in Hong Kong at the present time under treaty arrangements and that, in point of fact, if the Peking Government did not want us to remain, it would be highly doubtful whether we could defend our position there? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It would be not only highly doubtful but impossible to defend it. Therefore, ought we not to avoid any provocative action of this sort?

Mr. Turton: Apart from the provocative nature of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary, I think it not an unreasonable line to take that we shall help ships of all nations when they are in distress.

REGIONAL DEFENSIVE PACTS

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the military obligations of the United Kingdom under such regional defensive pacts as she has entered into have been made subject to an overriding obligation to abide by the decisions of the United Nations Organisation.

Mr. Turton: All the regional defence treaties to which the United Kingdom is a party provide that the treaty in question does not affect the rights and obliga-

tions under the Charter of the parties which are members of the United Nations.

Mr. Hale: Would the Minister tell the House what would be the position in the event of a regional treaty organisation deciding that a casus belli had arisen and the United Nations decided the following week that it had not, and in view of the fact that we have now four regional treaty organisations virtually covering the whole world, in every one of which the United States is a member, what would be the position of the United Kingdom in all these matters and how far would she have a choice?

Mr. Turton: The United Nations Organisation itself does not take the decisions. The question is referred to the Security Council. It is laid down explicitly in the Charter—I think it is Article 103—that in the event of a conflict between the obligations of members of the United Nations under the Charter and under any other international agreement their obligations under the Charter shall prevail.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Harold Macdonald Steward, Esquire, for Stockport, South.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House). — [Mr. Crookshank.]

Orders of the Day — COCOS ISLANDS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(TRANSFER OF THE ISLANDS TO AUSTRALIA.)

3.33 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, after "Council" to insert:
(the Parliament and Government of the Commonwealth of Australia having stated that they will give to the inhabitants of the Cocos or Keeling Islands all those same rights which those inhabitants enjoy as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies)".

The Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this Amendment, we took the Amendment to the Preamble, line 17, at the end to add:
And whereas the Parliament and Government of the Commonwealth of Australia have stated that they will give to the inhabitants of those islands all those same rights which they enjoy as citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies.

Mr. Dugdale: I agree, Sir Charles.
During the speech he made in winding-up the debate on Second Reading, the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations expressed confidence in the Australian Government and said that they would do what was right for the people of the Cocos Islands. We would agree with him, and because of that and the confidence we have in the Australian Government we feel that there can be no objection on the part of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to inserting these words in the Bill. They simply express what we all know to be a fact, that there will be no diminution in the privileges of the people of the Cocos Islands as a result of their being taken over by Australia.
If the Government have any objection to inserting these words in the Bill, then I would ask what rights they think these people will not have. Will they not have freedom of speech or freedom of association such as we would give them? Will they not have the right to move where they like without any passports inhibiting their movements? Will they be subject to pass laws? Obviously not,

but will they be told to separate and live only in special parts of the country as the unfortunate inhabitants of another part of the Commonwealth are being told to do? Obviously, they will not be so directed and they will not be deprived of their rights. Therefore, I think it is only correct that we should insert this fact in the Bill.
I know it may be argued by Government supporters that an unwritten constitution is always better than a written one. I think we would agree in the case of a free people. It is certainly better in our own case, but these people are not to be free. They are to be transferred from the power of one Government to the power of another. Therefore, the position is somewhat different.
For these reasons we feel that the Government will be willing to accept this Amendment which merely puts into the Bill facts about which all of us on both sides of the Committee and the Australian Government are in general agreement. We think it would, in fact, give a charter to the people of these islands, a charter which might be useful in the case of transfers of any other islands to other parts of the Commonwealth in later years. We hope that the Government will accept this very simple and reasonable Amendment.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would heartily approve of the terminology and also of the sentiments expressed in these Amendments. I would be extremely happy to see such Amendments in the Bill, but I imagine from what we heard on Second Reading that they are designed to enable the people of the Cocos Islands to move freely, for example, into Australia. I think that is what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) has in mind; but I am open to correction and I shall be only too happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman if I am wrong on that point.

Mr. Dugdale: Yes, and the Australian Government have given assurances which are satisfactory, at least to Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Gower: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the Committee, but my recollection of the


Second Reading debate is that the Australian Government undertook to consider each application with great sympathy, which is something rather different from what the right hon. Gentleman is saying now. Of course, that particular agreement was negotiated in terms by the Government to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged.
As I said, I would be delighted to see such a form of words in the Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman is being a trifle unfair to the Committee when he suggests we can demand a form of words which the Government of which he was a member did not, for some reason, negotiate. That, as I understand, would be the effect of this Clause. I should like to hear my right hon. Friend say that there would be no difficulty in having such wording in the Bill, but I imagine, from our debate on Second Reading and the past history of this problem, that we have to accept the agreement negotiated by the Government previous to this one, which is that, while these people will enjoy all the liberties and rights which they already enjoy as members of the British community, including the right to go to North Borneo and to Britain—they have those rights already—they cannot easily enjoy these additional rights.
While that may be unfortunate, it was the impression which I derived during the Second Reading, and I am sure that on reflection the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that that was the whole meaning of what was said during that debate. I think, too, he will agree that he agreed by implication or expressly with that agreement when the Government of which he was a member made it. I should like to hear my right hon. Friend say that there will be no difficulty in arranging this but from what I have heard of the history of this matter, there will be some difficulty.
In any case, I am satisfied that the people of the Cocos Islands will have no rights taken from them by this Bill. On the contrary, rights have been added, an important one being that contained in the assurance given by my right hon. Friend that the Australian Government will consider with great sympathy each application to go to an additional place. These people already have the right to go to North Borneo or to come here, but the

assurance has been given that sympathetic consideration will also be given to applications to enter Australia. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has very innocently presented this Amendment as if there were no difficulty, but I imagine that there is considerable difficulty.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Unlike the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), when the general principle involved in this Amendment was raised on Second Reading some of us felt that the assurances then given by Her Majesty's Government were by no means satisfactory. The hon. Member is trying to shelter behind an alleged agreement to which my right hon. Friend was a party. If he was a party to such agreement, I did not know, but the fact that something was agreed two or three years ago does not deprive me, when the principle is brought to my notice, of the right to record my strongest objection to that principle.
While it is true that this Bill does not take away any right which the residents or natives of the Cocos Islands at present enjoy, it goes on to give them a kind of half-right which is the subject of argument now. That half-right relates, of course, to their Australian citizenship, and that is something that we, on this side, are trying to prevent. By the Bill as it stands we shall create, or give the Australian Government the opportunity of creating, two classes of Australian citizenship. There will be the first-class citizen who can live in Australia without any difficulty and who will not be subject to any restrictions. The second-class citizen will be he to whom citizenship may be granted only at the discretion of the Australian Government, and who will be subject to such qualifications and restrictions in respect of that citizenship as the Australian Government may seek to impose. It is to that that we object.
It is true that there are perhaps only a few hundred people remaining on the island who, by remaining there now and eventually applying for Australian citizenship, will be affected by this Bill, but the principle to which we must record the strongest possible objection is the creation, within the Commonwealth, of two different grades of citizenship. That is what is happening under this Bill and why I support the Amendment. That is why, if no satisfactory reply comes from the Government, I hope that my right hon. Friend


will press the matter to a Division. A most important question of principle is at stake.

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: I wish to raise quite a narrow point. For myself, I am quite convinced that the Australian Government and people will be generous and sympathetic to the wants of the islanders. My concern—and I hope I am in order—relates to air travel. As I see it, there is only one international airline operating through the islands, and that is an Australian company. While, no doubt, aircraft of the United Kingdom or any Commonwealth country would have the right to go through—and would do so—the fact remains that the servicing, and so on, would be carried out by that Australian company.
One knows what happens when there is a monopoly. I should like an assurance that in these islands, where air passage is important to the people, airline operations will not be limited or tied to that one company, and that it will not be able to place any embargo on any Commonwealth company having facilities similar to those which it itself enjoys.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I am extremely disappointed by the Government's attitude to the Cocos Islands. Throughout the speeches on Second Reading the suggestion was made by the Government—and, in particular, by the Under-Secretary of State—that all we wanted was to be achieved, and that the Cocos Islanders were really to have citizenship in Australia. But, in addition to making those promises—and I think they amounted to promises—the hon. Gentleman was sheltering all the time behind the supposed agreement of right hon. Gentlemen on this side to what was being done.
I think it is plain that what right hon. Gentlemen on this side agreed to was that the Cocos Islanders should have full citizenship. Surely, those right hon. Gentlemen would be pardoned for assuming from that that citizenship meant at least the right for these people to settle in Australia, and to practise, if they wished, as doctors, barristers or whatever they chose. Perhaps none of them ever will want to do that, but the point is their right to do so.
This is a matter of principle. Although we are now considering the transfer of a very few hundred people to a country like Australia which, on the whole, has enlightened laws, at a later stage we might be considering the transfer of far more people to a Dominion which had no such enlightenment in its policy. If we agreed to this today without saying anything we should be held to have agreed to the principle of handing people over to something very much less than citizenship in the full sense of the term.
It is less than courtesy to the Committee to pretend that one large section of it has agreed to the handing over of a few hundred people in these circumstances when what, in fact, right hon. Gentlemen on this side agreed to—and if I am wrong I hope I shall be contradicted at some stage—was that full citizenship in Australia should be given to the Cocos Islanders.
Can it in any way be said that full citizenship is given to them if they are not to be given the right to go freely to Australia, to settle there and do whatever they wish in the way of earning their living? They are not, apparently, to be allowed that now as a matter of right, though I have no doubt that generous consideration will be given to them under the terms of the agreement between the Australian Government and Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.
I hope that we shall have a very full statement. Let us be under no misapprehension at all. No one on this side, as far as I am aware, agreed to the handing over of the Cocos Islanders on terms by which they would receive anything less than full citizenship in Australia. It is cowardly and, in my submission, quite wrong for the Government to pretend that they have full agreement to anything less than that from my right hon. Friends.
I support the Amendment, because it tends to clarify the position. If the Government are so satisfied that they are to get for the Cocos Islanders from the Australian Government what they say they think they will get, why do they not agree to the Amendment which makes it plain beyond a peradventure that the Cocos Islanders will get something very much more than the second-class citizenship to which, apparently, Her Majesty's present advisers have agreed?

Mr. Gower: The hon. and learned Member spoke of handing these people over to something less than citizenship. Did he also recall my hon. Friend's assurance that these people were to retain their full rights of British citizenship?

Mr. Mallalieu: Yes. I was talking about Australian citizenship.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: That is the whole point.

Sir Ian Fraser: The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) spoke of two kinds of citizenship which might result were this Bill to pass unamended. I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether there are not, in fact, two kinds of citizenship in New Zealand and in Canada and whether we ought not to bear these difficulties in mind. We cannot expect similarity between different countries each of which has a different geography and a different history. I thought I would call attention to that point by means of this question.

Sir Leslie Plummer: The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) gave the Committee, I think unwittingly, the impression that the Cocos Islanders would benefit as a result of being transferred to the Government of Australia. I submit that under the terms of the Bill as it is, unamended, they will get no benefit at all.
What will happen is that the Cocos Islanders will exchange one benevolent Government with interests in their development for another benevolent Government which is interested in their development, and no more. It will be as though they were moving from one pleasant house with a pleasant view to another pleasant house with a pleasant view, but they will get no more than that, because, unless they are given the right to move into and about Australia in exactly the same way as any other Australian citizen, they will be denied citizenship.
Surely it is our responsibility to try to arrange the lives of the colonial peoples in such a way that we improve their lives and increase their advantages. It is because this Bill does not do that, that I suggest that the Government ought to accept this Amendment. In what I am saying I am not criticising the Australian

Government for their relations with native people. They will make mistakes, in the same way as we have made mistakes and, no doubt, will continue to do so, but I recognise that they approach this problem in a spirit of good will.
The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, in the very reasonable speech that he made in reply to the Second Reading debate last week, made it clear that what we were arguing about—and certainly what I was arguing about—was a point of principle and not a point of substance. I agree that the future happiness of the Cocos Islanders is a minute drop in a great ocean of humanity, but this is a really important matter of principle.
The argument has been stated over and over again that the Australians are in a difficulty. I heard the Australian Prime Minister say on television the other day that the "White Australia" policy was supported by both parties in that country. It is argued that we would be putting the Australians in a difficult position if we were to insist on this Amendment, because the Australian Government would have no support at home for granting the Cocos Islanders complete citizenship, by reason of their colour. But I would point out that there is an open door in Australia, and that there is a very strong feeling in that country that a restrictionist, exclusive White Australia policy is very bad for Australia. I think it would be very bad for the Cocos Islanders. It is a bad thing to have a colour bar anywhere. I advance this argument in support of this Amendment and, if I may be so impertinent, in the interests of Australia and her people also.
I commend to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the annual Social Justice Statement made by the archbishops and bishops of Australia, responsible and respected persons, in September, 1951. In that document they say:
Is there any valid moral reason why we should strive for the survival of Australia as a nation predominantly European? The answer to this question is all-important. The moral justification of Australia's survival will not simply be found in Australia's own achievement. This achievement, great in many respects, has been marred in others by manifestations of human frailty of which we can hardly be proud. … Nor will the necessary justification be found in any false assumption of racial superiority which too often underlies, the so-called White Australia Policy.


Here the leaders of religious thought in Australia expressed the fears which my hon. Friends expressed last week and are expressing again today. On the last occasion I said that this was an affront to coloured peoples all over the world. I know the difficulty in which the Government find themselves. I know that they have gone a long way to get the Australian Government to agree to view with reasonable sympathy any application by any Cocos Islanders who want to go to Australia, and I know, too, that the Australian Government have gone a long way to meet the wishes of Her Majesty's Government.
This Amendment asks that we should go just one step further in ensuring that we add to the rights, privileges and happiness of the Cocos Islanders in this respect because it is our responsibility.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: I think that all hon. Members will agree with what the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) has said about the colour bar. In my view, no reasonable person condemns anyone for the colour of his skin.

Mr. Ede: A publican in Coventry seems to take a different view.

Mr. Craddock: It is a long way from Coventry to the Cocos Islands, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, with all his experience in this place, realises that if I were to go into a dissertation on what Coventry thinks, I would be out of order on this Amendment.
As I said, I think everyone agrees that it would be wrong to condemn any person for the colour of his skin, and, as far as I am aware, that is the general view in Australia, too. What I surmise is the Government's difficulty in accepting this Amendment is that the terms of this arrangement have already been agreed with the Australian authorities, and, indeed, they were agreed by the late Government. Therefore, I think it is rather difficult at this late stage for any change such as is suggested to be made now. It seems strange that such a suggestion should come so forcibly from hon. Members opposite who, in fact, agreed to the terms of the transfer.
In answer to what the hon. Member for Deptford has said about the statement of the Church authorities in Australia, I

should have thought that the best course would be to let this Bill go through as it stands, and let the agitation, if any, come from the Australians if any of the inhabitants of these islands are refused their just and lawful rights such as they have enjoyed under the British Administration, it is surely right and proper that the people of Australia should agitate to rectify the position.
I hope, therefore, that hon. Members opposite will agree that, as they approved these arrangements, it is rather late in the day for them now to come forward with other suggestions, and that they will let this Clause go through as it stands without amendment.

Sir L. Plummer: Has the hon. Gentleman not grasped the point that the Australian Government have asked for these islands, and we are now discussing the terms on which we hand them over to the Australian Government? That is a much more important point than the hon. Gentleman seems to have grasped.

Mr. Craddock: With great respect, as I understand, that is not the case. The present arrangements were agreed by the previous Government with the Australian authorities.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I am sure we all agree that the Australian Government behave in a generous and sympathetic fashion, and no one on this side of the Committee wishes to snipe at that Government in any way over their so-called "White Australia" immigration policy. It is more a white elephant policy when we look at the empty spaces in the north which it is impossible to have colonised by coloured people, never mind Anglo-Saxons.
But we cannot compare the handing over of the Cocos Islanders with whatever the Government of Australia may do about being swamped by millions of Asians with lower standards of living—Chinese or Indians, for instance, coming from South-East Asia. That is the reason for the anxiety on this side of the Committee. In the last debate on this matter the Minister said:
We are dealing with a group of Cocos Islanders about whom the Australian Government have said, in the course of negotiations, that any applications for transfer of residence will be considered most sympathetically. That


is not a consideration which they apply to any other group."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 31st January, 1955; Vol. 536, c. 729.]
We are guardians of these islanders and before we finally hand them over we must look very carefully at any arrangements which are made. Are the Cocos Islands unique in this matter? I wonder whether they are. I was talking in the Lobby today to a guest from Australia and I asked him what would happen to the Cocos Islanders when they were handed over to the care of the Australian Government. He replied, "I suppose they will be the same as the Lord Howe islanders." I have not been to the Lord Howe Islands and I wonder whether even my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) has been there.

Mr. M. Follick: I have been to Norfolk Island.

Mr. Johnson: These islands lie off the east coast of New South Wales. Their history is similar to that of the Cocos Islands; three Europeans went there with a harem of Maori ladies in the 1830s and the islands' population has blossomed in the same way as the Cocos Islands' population has blossomed. The Lord Howe Islands are now governed by the New South Wales State Government and I wonder what their status is and whether the Cocos Islands will have better conditions than the Lord Howe Islands have been given, as we hope will be the case. After all, the Cocos islanders may go to Australia and play cricket. The Aborigines play cricket and the famous Eddie Gilbert once bowled Don Bradman first ball for a duck. He played for Queensland but has no vote in that State.
In view of the fact that mechanics and even pilots of the airways will mingle with them, the Cocos islanders will have contacts with Australians, will go to Australia, will marry Australian girls and will wish to settle in Australia. It is natural that we on this side of the Committee should wish to make quite sure in our minds what will be the future status of the Cocos islanders.
Hon. Members opposite have said that we on this side of the Committee entered into an agreement on these lines in 1951. I wonder whether the details of the agreement were settled in 1951, I asked a Question in July, 1951, about the airstrip

being handed over to the Australian Government, but I wonder whether, when in Government, we arranged the details of the status and the conditions which the islanders would enjoy when they were handed over to our sister Dominion. There may be doubt about it.
Whatever we did or did not do four years ago, we want now to make quite sure that their conditions are as they should be, for the best, if and when the islands are handed over. I hope the Minister will make it clear that full citizenship will be given to the islanders when they wish to leave and to intermarry on the mainland, and I hope we shall have some definite statement about what the status of the Cocos Islanders will be when compared with the status of the Lord Howe Islanders.

Mr. Bernard Braine: I think all hon. Members understand the very proper motives of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in putting down the Amendment. When we are considering the transfer of territory, whether it be large or, as in this case, small, we are concerned not with land but with human beings. The Committee must address itself very much on such an occasion as this to the welfare and the well-being of the people concerned.
Nevertheless, I cannot help feeling that in this instance we are making a little of a mountain out of a molehill. To a certain degree—I will put it no higher—we are showing lack of trust and confidence in one of our fellow member nations of the Commonwealth and one which has an exceptionally fine administrative record in its own overseas territories. I have particularly in mind the Australian record in Papua and New Guinea. It is a first-class record. The end of the war found me not far from those parts of the world. I think anybody who knows anything at all about Australia's administrative record would be the first to say that anybody entrusted to her charge is entrusted to a nation which cares about human beings.
In this case we are concerned with the transfer not only of very small islands but also, I understand, of only 303 people. The population in 1946, I am told, was about 1,300, but between 1946 and today the vast majority have emigrated to Borneo. That is not surprising since the majority of the inhabitants of the Cocos


Islands are of Malay origin. I remember that on Second Reading somebody asked what would happen if they wanted to go to their motherland. Their motherland, obviously, is Malaya or Indonesia, because that is where their ancestors—most of them, at any rate—seem to have come from. The fact that the arrangements make it possible for the remaining 303 to retain their British citizenship or to enter Singapore or to go to Borneo gives them opportunity to make the necessary arrangements for their future if they dislike the idea of living under Australian rule.
Moreover, this is not a matter which has been left to chance. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations made it quite clear on Second Reading that the Australian Government have said, in the course of negotiations, that any applications for transfer of residence will be considered most sympathetically. I think that is a fair indication of their intentions. If the Australian Government say that to me, then I accept it; I do not question the word of Australia. What the Australians have said makes it unnecessary for the Committee to vote on the Amendment.
I do not think it is competent for us to pronounce on the "White Australia" policy, as it is called. The people of Australia are a sovereign people. Their motives, I understand, are designed to protect the relatively high living standards which the Australian people have won from their own soil, and, in my judgment, they are perfectly at liberty to say who shall and who shall not enter their country. In this instance, they have said quite clearly, as my hon. Friend made plain, that if any one of the 303 inhabitants still living in the Cocos Islands wishes to move from the islands to Australia, then the application will be considered sympathetically. For me, and, I hope, for the rest of the Committee, that is a sufficient assurance.

Mr. Follick: I thoroughly agree with the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) and also hope that there will not be a Division on this Amendment, but I wish to say something about the conception of the "White Australia" policy. The way in which we are talking about it is as if it were something new, but when I first went to Australia, in 1906, they had a "White Australia" policy. The

"White Australia" policy then did not preclude the Kanakas coming into Queensland so long as they agreed to go out again.

Mr. J. Johnson: is it not a fact that in Queensland, in 1890, they wished to admit Kanakas and even wished to secede on that very question?

Mr. Follick: This matter has been brought up on account of a little discussion I had with my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer). He looked down on me because I had not been there more recently than he had, but I certainly had been there before he was born. Even in that far-off epoch they had a "White Australia" policy. The idea was not to keep out a few of their own citizens, but to keep out the Japanese. They were afraid because the Japanese were so near and were getting so powerful after their victory over the Russians in the war of 1905 and 1906. The Australians saw a very powerful, rising Japan, a small territory, thickly populated, which, sooner or later, might want to have Australia. That was the conception of the "White Australia" policy; it is no new thing but has been there almost since the beginning of the century.
Having had a land handed over to them with only 300 very nice people living on it, I do not see that the Australians would want to make special laws against those people. I have been in New Zealand and I have seen the affection the New Zealanders have for the Maoris; it is an absolute affection. In the course of time, when the Australians have mixed with the inhabitants of the Cocos Islands—a great many Australians will be looking after installations there—and finding them nice people, I do not see that they would have any objection to any of those 300 people going to Australia. On the other hand, I cannot see any of the inhabitants of the Cocos Islands wanting to go to Australia. If they are to have their land made so nice for them they will want to stay there. I do not think the Australians will make themselves disliked and, if the inhabitants of the Cocos Islands want to go to see their new mother country, I imagine that will be made easy for them.
I hope we show a little common sense about this matter and let it go through without a Division.

Mrs. Eirene White: I did not intend to intervene in this debate until I heard the very dangerous speech of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine). That brought me to my feet because, once again, he was discussing this matter in a way of which I thought he had disposed on Second Reading—as if it were a very small matter of 300 people who may never wish to go to Australia. That is not the important point. A matter of principle is involved which, although it is small, might be invoked at a later stage on a matter of far greater substance and importance.

Mr. Braine: I am sure the hon. Lady does not wish to do me an injustice. Of course there is a question of principle and I admitted that at the beginning of my speech. But, in respect of the 303 inhabitants, we have an assurance from the Australian Government, of which I think we should take note, which nullifies so much of what has been said.

4.15 p.m.

Mrs. White: I do not think we can agree about that in the least.
The whole point of our argument on this Bill, as we have said again and again, is no particular mistrust of the people or the Government of Australia, but we wish to have the principle firmly established. One may sympathise with the feelings of many in Australia, although not necessarily agreeing with their wish to have "White Australia" legislation, but if the Australian Government feel unable to give an absolute citizenship in no way different from that of persons living in Australia, we should have come to some different agreement. They should have acted in some way as agents for the United Kingdom Government because of their air interests, and so on, but not have taken over full administration with responsibility for citizenship.
That is what we are worried about—that they are taking over responsibility for citizenship without being able to give anything other than what we consider to be second-class citizenship. We have raised this matter primarily because it establishes such a very dangerous precedent. It may be a fair party point to say that the previous Administration, in 1951, through the Governor of Singapore, went quite a considerable distance in this matter. I am not sure what

details were discussed. It is not easy to find out from the two published written answers in July, 1951. However, I think that that is irrelevant to this point of principle, although one may use it across the Floor of the Committee.
The real question which disturbs us is that we may be establishing a very dangerous precedent. We are worried most of all about the question of first-and second-class citizenship. In fairness to the people of the Cocos Islands, it is our duty to make as sure as we can that within their own country their rights shall be assured and that there shall be no kind of diminution of those rights in the future. The geographical situation is such that there is never likely to be great activity on the islands; nevertheless, they will become increasingly important as an international air base. One is entitled to ask that there shall be an assurance, enacted in the Bill as we suggest by these Amendments, that the islanders' present rights shall be in no way diminished.
Various points were raised on Second Reading, which I shall not mention now. We have a double obligation to these people—to see that their rights at home are in no way diminished and to place on record our concern about the suggestion that within the Commonwealth we should be handing over people to one of our own fellow nations which has a perfect right to come to its own decisions on its own conditions of citizenship but which, in this particular action, seems to us to be establishing a very dangerous principle. If we cannot get a better agreement on this matter of citizenship and real certainty of it—not just a friendly assurance—we ought to have come to a different arrangement.

Mr. William Ross: I, also, was rather alarmed by what was said by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine). He and other hon. Members opposite have seemed to imply that previous arrangements had been reached by right hon. Members on this side of the Committee in 1951, when they formed the Government, and that as a result we should agree to anything that is being suggested here today.
This is the first time that Parliament has been asked to pronounce on this question. Our duties as responsible Members of Parliament require our


taking the same attitude towards the transfer of 300 people as to a transfer of 300,000 people. For anyone to suggest that it is not competent for us on this occasion to pronounce on our attitude towards the "White Australia" policy is completely to miss the point.
We are deciding the conditions of transfer of about 300 Cocos Islanders to the control of the Australian Government. Our present responsibilities are not for the Australian Government, but for the 300 Cocos Islanders. From the point of view of their advantage and of what will happen to them, we, as Members of Parliament, are concerned with what the whole conception of Commonwealth should be towards this matter.
It is very competent for us on this side to consider how the Cocos Islanders will be affected when the transfer for which we are responsible takes place. It is for that reason that I ask the Government to look at the question again. I do not think that any of us can contemplate with any degree of pleasure the idea that a form of citizenship should be given to the Cocos Islanders which would not give them free access to the country that gives them citizenship; that is quite ludicrous. There is no guarantee whatever in being told that when the question comes up, the matter will be considered sympathetically and that, therefore, we should be satisfied. I seriously ask the Government to look again at the Amendment and, if possible, accept it.

Mr. James Griffiths: Reference has been made to 1951 and to the early discussions on this matter, which occurred when I was Secretary of State for the Colonies and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) was Minister of State for Colonial Affairs. That was three and a half years ago, and even though I charge my memory it is difficult to recall everything after that lapse of time. I stand by whatever agreement we made, but I do not recall discussing the detailed arrangements for the transfer; I may have discussed them, but I do not recall doing so.
There were two aspects of the matter. The Australian Government, as was brought out during Second Reading, proposed to establish an important airport on the Cocos Islands which would perform important functions in the develop-

ment of certain of Australia's civil airs lines. There were also defence aspects so far as that base was concerned.
In the discussions which took place at the time, there was an agreement that discussions could begin about the transfer of the Cocos Islands to the Government of Australia. For some considerable time, the administration of the Cocos Islands was linked with the Colony of Singapore. From an answer given by my right hon. Friend, it was clear that when the initial approach was made, the first thing that we did was to approach the Governor of Singapore, who, it appears from the answer, consulted the unofficial members in Singapore about the transfer. As far as I remember, the matter was left there.
I do not think that the arrangements were concluded. I do not remember detailed discussions about citizenship, and I certainly have no recollection of discussions about first-and second-class citizenship. For some reason or other, the legal instrument for the transfer now comes before us, three and a half years after the first discussions.
I am placed in a difficulty in trying to recall something that happened three and a half years ago—and a lot which has happened since. I do not know why there has been this interval of three and a half years. I should like the Minister to say what, if any, detailed arrangements were made in 1951, what arrangements have been made since, and what discussions have taken place.
The point of the Amendment is that when this enabling Bill goes through, the transfer will not become effective until an Order in Council is made after the Bill finally reaches the Statute Book. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) had a lot to do with the citizenship changes for the Commonwealth and Empire in the 1948 Act, for which he was responsible. I should not dare to venture into that field, but no doubt my right hon. Friend will intervene and give his views. It seems, however, that at the moment the people of the Cocos Islands, like the citizens of any other Colony, are full citizens of the United Kingdom. If they came to this country and settled here, they would be as much a citizen as I am—that is clear.
Even assuming that something else was settled in 1951—but I do not think it was—what we ask in the Amendment is that


the Australian Government should agree that the Cocos Islanders' status vis-à-vis Australia shall be exactly the same as their present status vis-à-vis the United Kingdom. That is the simple principle that is involved.

Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the transfer does not take away from these people anything that they already possess? They will still remain British citizens after the transfer.

Dr. H. Morgan: Even in South Africa?

Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) is right, they will still remain citizens of the United Kingdom. They will also be citizens of Australia—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—or will they not? I should like the Minister's help on this point. As I understood, when the transfer takes place, the Cocos Islanders will be citizens of Australia. The question was whether when they become citizens of Australia, it would be citizenship on the same terms as they are now citizens of the United Kingdom.
It is not impossible that other transfers of this kind might develop in the future of the Commonwealth, but it is important that when these exchanges take place there should be no loss of citizenship rights by the people for whom responsibility is transferred from one member to another. What we want the Minister to explain is whether there is a danger, as my hon. and right hon. Friends thought there was from the Second Reading debate, that if the transfer takes place, the residents of the Cocos Islands will become citizens of Australia but not citizens with full rights; that is, that they will be citizens of the second class, without full rights.
4.30 p.m.
I find it very difficult to believe that the Australian Government would desire anything of that kind to take place or that there should be any impression of that kind. My first discussion of this problem was with the Australian Prime Minister in 1951, when he was in this country on the occasion of a Commonwealth conference or something of that kind. I ask the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, or the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, to clear this matter up and to make it plain,

without any doubt whatsoever, that when the transfer takes place the people on the Cocos Islands will be citizens of Australia and that they will then have citizenship in quite the same way as that which they have now in relation to us who are at present responsible for them.
I do not think that Australia itself would desire a transfer on terms which were less advantageous to the people of the Cocos Islands.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: With respect, I do not think that the Amendment has the same object as the right hon. Gentleman seems to have. The Amendment says:
… all those same rights which those inhabitants enjoy as citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies.

Mr. Griffiths: I took it that the purpose of the Amendment, if not its immediate effect, was to ensure that they have the same rights in Australian citizenship as in United Kingdom citizenship. It states:
(the Parliament and Government of the Commonwealth of Australia having stated that they will give to the inhabitants of the Cocos or Keeling Islands all those same rights which those inhabitants enjoy as citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies).
The rights which they enjoy as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies is that their citizenship is of exactly equal status to that of any of us. That is what it is suggested should be arranged with regard to their citizenship of Australia. Surely that is not an unreasonable thing to ask.
I do not care to think that the Australian Government would wish to deny it. We should like to have that point cleared up and an assurance given upon it. If the point cannot be answered now, surely this is a matter which the Prime Minister of Australia, who is now in this country, would gladly discuss with the Minister before we come to a final decision.

Mr. Gower: The right hon. Gentleman said that he desired that the Cocos Islanders should have equal rights with us in Australia. Nobody in this country has an unrestricted right of entry into Australia. Although we are very free citizens we have no unrestricted right to walk into that country, though I am sure that our applications for permission to enter are sympathetically considered.

Mr. Ede: We are not Australian citizens.

Mr. Griffiths: The people of the Cocos Islands have a right to come here. If they come they are full citizens, as are any people from any part of the Colonial Empire, and they enjoy full rights in this country. That is the point which is at stake and which, I hope, will be cleared up.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): rose—

Dr. Morgan: I tried to catch your eye, Sir Rhys, but you were looking elsewhere.

Mr. Hopkinson: We have had a useful discussion on an Amendment, which the Government have considered very carefully. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock) put his finger on the point when he said that the Amendment, and the subsequent Amendment to the Preamble on the same lines, do not do what the Opposition seek to do. All they do is to say that the Australian Government will allow these new citizens to enjoy the same rights as they do today, which are the rights of British subjects. Naturally, the Australian Government are not in a position to say whether they shall maintain rights in this country, in Singapore or anywhere else. That is for us to say.
Quite apart from that, the Australian Government have, in fact, gone a great deal further. They have offered the Cocos Islanders the right to go to Australia on the understanding that all applications for right of entry into Australia will be most sympathetically considered. I understand perfectly well what the Opposition are trying to achieve in these rather complicated Amendments. They seek to include in the Bill the assurance which we have received from the Australian Government that the Cocos Islanders will have the same rights of access to Australia as Australian citizens from the Commonwealth itself enjoy at the present time.
The fact is that just as the Australian Government could not attempt to legislate to bind Her Majesty's Government in any way, so we cannot attempt to legislate to bind the Australian Government. That would be quite wrong. I think the

right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) would be the first person to agree that we cannot attempt by our legislation to bind the Australian Government. What the Opposition would really like is to have the assurances put in some form of treaty. We cannot put these things in a treaty, because we have treaties only with foreign Governments. Even in the case of foreign Governments one would never attempt by British legislation to determine what is done by another Government in their effort to carry out a treaty.

Mr. Follick: The right hon. Gentleman is making a mistake. When we handed Heligoland over to Germany we laid it down that no citizen of Heligoland should serve in the German Army unless he volunteered. He must not be conscripted.

Mr. Hopkinson: I had Heligoland very much in mind when I was thinking about the Amendment, because that provision was laid down in a treaty under agreement and not in an Act of Parliament. That is the point which I am trying to make. We cannot have a treaty with the Australian Government because they are not a foreign Power.
We are doing the next best thing. The assurances do not cover merely the point of citizenship which we are now discussing but also the rights of the Admiralty in the islands, and the question of air facilities to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) referred. In passing, I might add that negotiations about the final details of air facilities have not been concluded, but the equality of treatment for British airlines, which my hon. and gallant Friend raised, will be borne in mind. All these details will be put into an exchange of letters between the appropriate Australian Ministers and the United Kingdom High Commissioner in Australia.

Mr. Dugdale: The right hon. Gentleman says that these points will be put in an exchange of letters. Do we understand that certain words similar to the words used in our Amendments will be put in the exchange of letters and will give us the things for which we ask? Are we to understand that we shall be given these things in the form of an exchange of letters rather than in the form of an addendum to the Bill?

Mr. Hopkinson: I was coming to those other points. The position which we found when we came to office was, as the right hon. Member for Llanelly said, that this matter was the subject of an agreement. The right hon. Gentleman, in a Written answer on 22nd June, 1951, said:
… the United Kingdom Government, after consultation with the Government of Singapore, … have accepted an Australian proposal that the islands should be transferred to Australia.
He went on to refer to the airstrip and added:
The necessary instruments of transfer will be prepared in due course."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1951; Vol. 489, c. 92.]
Later, on 4th July, the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans), made it clear that the Governor of Singapore had consulted the unofficial members of the Singapore Legislative Council. But the decision had been reached by the British Government, although the instruments had not been drawn up. I am not trying to make any party point, although one or two have been made across the Floor of the Committee this afternoon, but it might have been wiser to have gone into this matter before instead of after saying that they accepted the transfer to the Australian Government. However, it remained for Her Majesty's present advisers to go into the details, and we found that the question of access to Australia was not covered by the agreement as it had been reached up to then.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why it had taken so long for the agreement to be placed before the House for ratification. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was present when I referred to the matter in my speech the other day. I explained then that the delay was due to consideration of the question how the transfer should be made: whether it should be by Order in Council, by Order in Council under the Prerogative, or by an Act of Parliament. There was a great deal of correspondence between the Australian Government and Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom on this point, and, finally, it was decided that from every point of view it would be more desirable to have an Act of Parliament as making the position perfectly clear and completely watertight.
It enabled us, at the same time, to consider all the assurances that we wanted from the Australian Government about the transfer. An assurance on this matter was one of them, and we got the assurance which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations read to the House the other day. It will be embodied in the exchange of letters. It is not expected that any substantial number of Cocos Islanders will desire to go to Australia, but the Australian Government have indicated, in the course of negotiations about the transfer, that should any such applications be received they will be most sympathetically considered.
That gives the Cocos Islanders, or at least those of them who decide to become Australian citizens—they have the right to opt to become Australian citizens—the assurance that any application to enter Australia will be most sympathetically considered by the Australian Government.

Mr. J. Griffiths: When they do go to Australia, what kind of citizens will they be? Secondly, there are not only an exchange of letters and this Bill, but I understand that a Bill has also been before the Australian Government recently. Are the assurances to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred incorporated in the Australian Bill, since it is a matter for the Australians?

Mr. Hopkinson: The Cocos Islanders, when they go to Australia, will have full rights of citizenship, as I understand. There is no question of second-class citizenship here. They will have full rights in Australia, and, as has been said by the Australian Government, their applications for entry will be most sympathetically considered. I believe that this represents an advance in Australian policy generally, and I feel that we should be wise not to press for anything further in respect of this matter.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: The right hon. Gentleman says that when the Cocos Islanders go to Australia—in other words, when they have been admitted—they will have full citizenship rights. I do not think any of us doubts that, but that is not quite the point we are getting at. We are asking that they shall have the right to go to Australia to enjoy the full citizenship rights, and all that we can get from the right hon. Gentleman so far is that their


applications to go to Australia will be sympathetically considered. That is what we are referring to as second-class citizenship.

Mr. Hopkinson: I should not regard that as second-class citizenship at all. There are a great many other countries where this sort of rule applies. We cannot go to Jamaica as of right. Indeed, certain hon. Members are at the moment considering the possibilities of obtaining legislation to prevent British subjects from other territories coming here. It is certainly not a matter of creating second-class British subjects.
Earlier, I was asked a question about nationality. The Cocos Islanders have the right to acquire Australian citizenship. Even if they exercise that right, they will not lose their United Kingdom and Colonies citizenship unless, under Section 19 (1, a) of the right hon. Gentleman's British Nationality Act, 1948, they specifically renounce it. Therefore, they will retain all their rights as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and, in addition, they will get the rights of Australian citizenship.
I was also asked about Australian legislation. The position is that a Bill has been passed under which the Australian Government request and consent to receive this territory if it is passed to them. The second stage is for an enabling Bill to be passed through this House under which Her Majesty will act by Order in Council and will ultimately agree to the transfer. There will be a further Act of Parliament passed by the Australian Government dealing with the status of the islands as a territory belonging to the Commonwealth of Australia. There again, it would not be possible for us in this House to attempt to lay down what should be inserted in any Australian legislation.

Mr. Follick: The inhabitants of the Cocos Islands have privileges in Britain, but has the right hon. Gentleman any record at all of any inhabitant of the Cocos Islands ever having come to Britain?

Mr. Hopkinson: The only records we have are of Cocos Islanders going to North Borneo and to Christmas Island under the arrangements made by the right hon. Gentleman.
The position is perfectly clear. We have received assurances from the Australian Government about the entry of the Cocos Islanders into the Commonwealth territory which are an advance on Australian policy in many respects. We believe that the Australians will give the Cocos Islanders all the facilities that they require. We believe that this represents an advance on the part of the Australian Government, and we are grateful to them for it. I do not think we can ask for any further assurances about the matter from the Australian Government. We are satisfied that the Australian Government will carry out the assurances in the letter and the spirit. The assurances will be embodied in the exchange of letters which will accompany the transfer, and we believe that the rights of the Cocos Islanders and the principles concerned are fully safeguarded.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what will be included in the exchange of letters and what will be included in the Order in Council? Will the problem that we are discussing now be included in the exchange of letters or the Order in Council?

Mr. J. Johnson: Can the Minister answer my question which was, "What is the status of Lord Howe Island and how does it compare with the conditions in the Cocos Islands?"

Mr. Hopkinson: Without notice, I could not give an answer on that point. The exchange of letters will cover this and all the other points to which I referred in my speech the other day when moving the Second Reading of the Bill. It will refer to the status and citizenship of the inhabitants, to the interests of the Clunies-Ross family, the Royal Naval wireless station, operating facilities on the airstrip to be maintained by Qantas Airways and facilities for Cable and Wireless at the cable relay station.

Dr. Morgan: I have listened to this discussion, since I was most politely asked to attend a Committee meeting and I am thankful to the hon. Member who gave me that invitation. This discussion, as is usual in debates of this kind, has been skimming all round, but not getting to the bottom of, the problem I put before the House in the debate on Second Reading. We have stuck to the problem of the position of citizens of the Cocos


Islands vis-à-vis British citizenship in Australia. I want something more. I want the citizens of the Cocos Islands to have the right that British citizenship gives to any man throughout the whole Empire and Commonwealth of Great Britain.
This Amendment does not deal with that problem. The problem is the position of the Cocos Islanders when they leave the islands for any legitimate purpose as British citizens to travel throughout the British Empire. What, for example, is the position—I asked this on Second Reading and I would like someone to be kind enough to tell me the answer—of those who, instead of going to Australia and trying to enjoy Australian citizenship, which would probably be given to them, go to South Africa?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I do not think it would be in order to discuss that on this Amendment.

Dr. Morgan: The point we are discussing in this Amendment should be whether an alleged British citizen in the Cocos Islands could leave there and travel abroad. You are ruling, Sir Rhys, that the discussion must be confined to those who leave the Cocos Islands and go to Australia. I dare say you will rule me out of order, but I should have liked to discuss what the position would be if these citizens left the Cocos Islands and went to any other part of the British Commonwealth. I should like to see them enjoy citizenship of that part of the British Commonwealth.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member was quite right in his expectation that I would rule him out of order in doing that.

Dr. Morgan: I can only accept your Ruling and say that it is unique that one can discuss the Cocos Islanders vis-à-vis Australia, but cannot discuss them vis-à-vis any other supposed Dominion. With great respect, I should like to submit that we should include the position of these Cocos Islanders if they went to and hoped to be citizens of South Africa. But as you have ruled me out of order, I can only bow to your Ruling with great regret and say how sorry I am that we cannot discuss this most interesting problem of citizens of one province being considered eligible for citizenship in one Dominion.
It is a strange position that we are accepting. We should be strong enough to stand up for Commonwealth citizens, whether Cocos Islanders or not, who go to South Africa and ask to be allowed permanent residence there and to be regarded as citizens of South Africa.

Mr. Ede: This matter is not quite as simple as the Minister tried to make out in his reply. We are not concerned merely with the people now resident in the Cocos Islands. They have the right of opting whether they will be citizens of Australia, or remain citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. They can, of course, if they adopt Australian citizenship, relinquish the other citizenship. But we were told on Second Reading that the effect of this transfer will be that all persons born in the Cocos Islands after the transfer becomes effective will be citizens of Australia and not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. That will be true of children of, let us say engineers who go out from this country to serve on the airstrips and the children of citizens of this country who go to the Cocos Islands for other purposes and there have children born.
What will be the position of such a person who then wants to get into Australia? Is such a person to be the subject of favourable consideration by the Australian Government? Presumably he will be in just the same position as an immigrant into Australia who was born in this country, but who, at the moment, has no right of admission to Australia. He might, of course, have a special status under the "White Australia" policy, that is to say, if both his parents are British subjects he might have a better chance than a person who is the child of Malay parents.
What will be the position of the person who has a father who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and a mother who is a Cocos Islander? I believe that such a person can be born. There is nothing in the laws of nature against it. Let us take this astounding position; let us assume that a child entirely of Malay parentage, now a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, who either does not opt or is born after the date of transfer, desires higher education. If he desires to come to Oxford or Cambridge, he can enter this country without question. Once he is a British subject he


can enter the Kingdom without question and go to such educational institutions in this country as may be willing to accept him.
5.0 p.m.
Suppose he prefers to go to a university in Sydney, being rather nearer to it. If he is an Australian citizen in the Cocos Islands, either by birth or because he was born earlier than the transfer and opted for Australian citizenship, does he have to get this special permission and favourable consideration before he can enter one of these great universities which he has chosen on the Australian island continent?
This point demonstrates that the Bill is not quite the simple matter which the right hon. Gentleman led us to believe it was. It also emerges that unless the House of Commons consents to the Bill and passes it forward to another place, none of these conundrums need arise. The islands will remain a British Colony. Every child born there, whether before or after any particular date which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind for transfer, will be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. It will be the duty of the right hon. Gentleman's Department to attempt to get for that citizen the most favourable consideration in any part of the world to which he wants to go.
My hon. and right hon. Friends have been pressing that a further arrangement should be made with the Australian Government. I asked on the last occasion about the position, and we were told that a Bill had passed through all stages in the Australian Government. I asked whether it had received the Royal Assent, but I had no answer. I do not blame anybody on the Government Front Bench for that, because the question was sprung on them. May I be told now whether this Bill has had the Royal Assent?

Mr. Hopkinson: Yes, it has.

Mr. Ede: Then we can see the exact position from the examination of the Australian Act. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind what was said from this side of the Committee. We are not merely dealing with 303 Cocos Islanders, but laying down a precedent on a great issue of principle which might not be as easily dealt with in relation to other of Her Majesty's self-governing Dominions as it can be in relation to

Australia. I hope that nothing said in this debate will be read in Australia as expressing doubt of their good faith in this matter. If Australia were the only Dominion I am not sure that I would be worried as much about the matter as I am.
We may have other Bills of this kind for the transfer of some other place to some other Dominion. An innocent Member will rise and say to the Government Front Bench, "What precedent have you for this?" The answer will at once be, "The famous Cocos Islands Act, 1955." This miserable little Measure, dealing with 303 people, might quite well be given as a reason for dealing with a couple of million people somewhere else in the Queen's Dominions. This is not a small matter. No one can say that it has been debated in a small way on either side of the House. We all realise the seriousness of the position with which we are faced.
It would be good and establish a precedent for the great advantage of the British Commonwealth of Nations if we could get from the Australian Government at some stage an assurance that they were prepared to accept these people as Australian citizens, with a right of access to any part of the Australian Dominions of Her Majesty. That is the issue at stake. What happens to an Australian citizen in New Guinea, which is within the Australian Dominions?

Mr. Hopkinson: New Guinea is trust-held territory.

Mr. Ede: I imagine that they have to get favourable consideration and an answer in the affirmative when they apply for admission to Sydney or Melbourne, let us say.

Mr. J. Johnson: What is the position of the Lord Howe Islanders?

Mr. Ede: They are the special concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson). I am not favourable to Lords myself, but the right hon. Gentleman must realise that these islanders are not less worthy of favourable consideration for that reason.
Let the Committee realise that we hold the key to the future. If the Bill is defeated on Third Reading all these issues will not arise. I hope that before we part


with the Bill we can get something a little more emphatic from the right hon. Gentleman and those who sit beside him.

Mr. Dugdale: My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has rightly stressed the very great importance of this question, as a matter of principle. We are naturally anxious that a change should be made, but we do not want to press the matter to a Division simply for the sake of a Division. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can assure us that consideration will be given between now and the Third Reading to an alteration in the terms of agreement. If we can get some consideration we may achieve what we want.
There is a unique opportunity, the Prime Minister of Australia being present in this country. If we could get the assurance that consideration would be given and nothing final done until the Third Reading, we would not press the matter to a Division. I hope we shall get that assurance so that I may be able to withdraw the Amendment. A discussion with the Prime Minister of Australia might result in something more favourable being achieved for the people of the Cocos Islands.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I hope it is not too much to ask the Minister to give an undertaking that he will give further thought to the matter, and so enable us to withdraw the Amendment. Will he not respond to this appeal?

Mr. Hopkinson: As we shall go straight on to the Third Reading it will be very difficult for me to communicate with the Prime Minister of Australia or with anybody else. I understand the point of view of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Griffiths: The Third Reading is not on the Order Paper, but only the Committee stage. There is no reason why the Third Reading should be taken

now. Hon. Members have not been notified that the Third Reading will be taken. In view of that, would it not be better to conclude the Committee stage today and not proceed with the Third Reading? That would give the Minister an opportunity to consider the matter between now and Third Reading and the passage of the Bill to another place. My hon. Friends feel so strongly about this matter that, if that is not done, they will press it to a Division. Surely it would be far better for the Minister to give an undertaking to reconsider this.

Mr. Hopkinson: I think I should be wrong to say that I agree with the proposal not to take the Third Reading now, because I should be giving the impression to the Opposition that I believe we could get a substantial alteration in the terms of the assurances given to us by the Australian Government. They have given assurances which, I believe, go a very long way and are a great advance on anything ever said before in this matter. I consider that I should be quite wrong if, by saying that I or my right hon. Friend would go to the Australian High Commissioner, I gave the impression that we should succeed in obtaining some alteration. I do not believe that we should. I think that we have had far-reaching assurances and we should be satisfied with them.
I would only say this: if, having discussed it with my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, he thinks it possible to make any further advance in this matter, it would perhaps be possible to make an Amendment when this Bill goes to another place. I should be glad to suggest that to my noble Friend. Otherwise, I should not wish to mislead the Committee by suggesting that we can expect to obtain any further substantial change in the assurances.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 112, Noes 163.

Division No. 30.]
AYES
[5.14 p.m.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Attlee Rt. Hon. C. R.
Clunie, J.
Deer, G.


Bing, G. H. C.
Collick, P. H.
Dodds, N. N.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. C.
Collins, V. J.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)


Bowden, H. W.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Bowles, F. C.
Cove, W. G.
Edwards Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)


Brook, Drydon (Halifax)
Crossman, R. H. S.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Daines P.
Fienburgh, W.




Follick, M.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Royle, C.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
MacColl, J. E.
Shurmero, P. L. E.


Gibson, C. W.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
McLeavy, F.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacPhersono, Malcolm (Stirling)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Hamilton, W. W.
Manuel, A. C.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hardy, E. A.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hargreaves, A.
Mason, Roy
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hastings, S.
Mellish, R. J.
Swingler, S. T.


Hayman, F. H.
Messer, Sir F.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Mikardo, Ian
Turner-Samuels, M.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Mitchison, G. R.
Viant, S. P.


Holmes, Horace
Moody, A. S.
Wallace, H. W.


Houghton, Douglas
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Warbey, W. N.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Watkins, T. E.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Moyle, A.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, c.)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Oswald, T.
Weitzman, D.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Owen, W. J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Pannell, Charles
Wheeldon, W. E.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Pargiter, G. A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Piaton, J.
Wigg, George


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Popplewell, E.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Proctor, W. T.
Willis, E. G.


Keenan, W.
Reeves, J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Lawson, G. M.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Yates, V. F.


Lewis, Arthur
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lindgren, G. S.
Ross, William
Mr. Wilkins and Mr. John Taylor.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Alport, C. J. M.
Foster, John
Marples, A. E.


Arbuthnot, John
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Armstrong, C. W.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'ombe &amp; Lonsdale)
Maude, Angus


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Godber, J. B.
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Banks, Col. C.
Gower, H. R.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Barlow, Sir John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Molson, A. H. E.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Boll, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Neave, Alrey


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eve)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Bishop, F. P.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Oakshott, H. D.


Black, C. W.
Heath, Edward
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Page, R. G.


Braine, B. R.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Peake, Rt. Hon. G.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hollis, M. C.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hope, Lord John
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Powell, J. Enoch


Bullard, D. G.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Ramsden, J. E.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Rayner, Brig. R.


Burden, F. F. A.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Carr, Robert
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Renton, D. L. M.


Clarke, Col. Sir Ralph (E. Grinstead)
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Cole, Norman
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Robertson, Sir David


Colegate, Sir Arthur
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Roper, Sir Harold


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Kerr, H. W.
Scott, Sir Donald


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Leather, E. H. C.
Sharples, Maj. R. C.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Shepherd, William


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hn. H. F. C.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbr'gh, W.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crouch, R. F.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Spent, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (K'ns'gt'n, S.)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Deedes, W. F.
Longden, Gilbert
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Donner, Sir P. W.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Studholme, H. G.


Drayson, G. B.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Sumner, W. D. M.


Drewe, Sir C.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Teeling, W.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Heref'd)


Finlay, Graeme
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Fisher, Nigel
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)







Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Vane, W. M. F.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Thompson, Lt-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. P. (M'nm'th)
Vosper, D. F.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Touche, Sir Gordon
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Woollam, John Victor


Turner, H. F. L.
Walker-Smith, D. C.



Turton, R. H.
Wall, Major Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Redmayne and Mr. Wills.


Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Hopkinson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, to leave out from "and" to the end of line 3 and to insert:
any Order in Council in force in respect of the said Colony under that Act and the British Settlements Acts, 1887 and 1945, as applied by that Act.
The Amendment is a purely technical one. It is necessary because the subsection contains a reference to the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1946. That Order in Council was subsequently superseded by an Order in Council establishing a new Singapore Constitution, made on 1st February. That will come into force before the passing of this Measure, and it is, therefore, necessary to introduce the Amendment, which substitutes for the present reference to a specific Order in Council a reference to the two Acts under which are made the Orders in Council which at present define the relationship of the Cocos Islands to Singapore.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Hopkinson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have had a long debate upon this Measure. Although comparatively simple and, as some might think, trivial in itself, it has raised points of principle about which hon. Members on both sides of the House have had strong feelings and have expressed views. I need not enter again into the arguments which I adduced during my speech in the Second Reading debate, in giving the main reasons for the Bill, or the detailed points which we have considered today during the Committee stage. I would only say that I am

quite satisfied that the assurances which we have obtained from the Australian Government in regard to the point which has caused some anxiety among hon. Members opposite will give us all that we and they require.
The first Amendment which we discussed in Committee just now would not have attained the desired results if it had been carried. I am certain that the exchange of letters between the Australian Minister concerned and the High Commissioner of the United Kingdom in Australia will contain the assurances desired.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We have had a discussion upon an important matter, and I am sure that hon. Members who have listened to the debate will be seized of the fact that hon. Members on this side of the House thought that it was one which was of real concern at this stage in the development of our Colonies. I hope that the Ministers concerned will take an opportunity to discuss this matter with Mr. Menzies, the Prime Minister of Australia, before he leaves, and that when we come to the exchange of letters particular attention will be paid to this problem. I understand that it will be.
I wish the Minister had been able to give us the assurance for which we asked, so that we could have avoided a Division upon the Amendment. However, that is now over. We certainly accede to the Third Reading of the Bill, but I hope that when the exchange of letters takes place those letters will be laid upon the Table, so as to be within the knowledge of the House. I also hope that some consideration will be given as to the manner in which, in the exchange of letters, the assurances desired by us, and, I think, the House, may be effected.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to extend the period for which schemes may continue in force under section one of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1940, to increase the amounts payable out of moneys provided by Parliament for the purposes of such schemes, and to include the New Hebrides among the territories for which such schemes may be made, it is expedient to authorise—
A. The payment out of moneys so provided of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session—
(1) extending to the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixty, the time during which such schemes, other than schemes for promoting research or inquiry, may continue in force;
(2) substituting for the limits imposed by the said Act of 1940 (as amended by subsequent enactments) on the sums to be paid out of moneys so provided for the purposes of such schemes, including schemes for promoting research or inquiry, the following limits, namely:—
(a) in respect of all such schemes, an aggregate limit of two hundred and twenty million pounds, excluding sums paid as aforesaid before the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty six, and excluding sums required by the Secretary of State in the period ending on the first day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven, for making payments pursuant to any such scheme as is described in section two of the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1954;
(b) in respect of all such schemes, a limit of thirty million pounds in any financial year, excluding sums required by the Secretary of State as aforesaid; and
(c) in respect of schemes for promoting research or inquiry, a limit of three million pounds in any financial year;
(3) applying section one of the said Act of 1940 in relation to the New Hebrides as it applies in relation to a colony.

B. The payment into the Exchequer of any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums required to be so paid under subsection (3) of the said section one.

Orders of the Day — COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir RHYS HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(AMENDMENT OF 3 & 4 GEO. 6. c. 40. s. 1 (1).)

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Creech Jones: I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, to leave out "sixty" and to insert "fifty-eight."
During the Second Reading debate some doubt was expressed by hon. Members on this side of the Committee as to the inadequacy of the moneys provided by the Bill if development and welfare work is to go forward at the pace which hon. Members on this side, at any rate, desire. We find that possibly the only way of raising this issue is by asking for an alteration of the dates within which period the moneys provided should be spent. Accordingly, the Amendment suggests that instead of 1960 the date should be 1958, in which case the moneys provided by the Bill would be spent over a period of three instead of five years, thereby making a larger sum available each year in the immediate future.
I gather that it is unlikely that another Amendment associated with this one can be moved, but in view of the feeling among hon. Members on this side of the Committee and the scepticism expressed by hon. Members opposite as to whether we were in a position to name a figure, or on what grounds we regarded the figure provided in the Bill as inadequate, we put this Amendment down. It was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that in our judgment the money provided is inadequate, largely because in this field of development we are ceasing to deal as generously with the Colonies as we have done under previous Bills, the value of money has fallen, and the schemes which are now coming to fruition are making demands for additional money if they are to be sustained in the Territories. That situation will and does call for a more generous response from this country. Indeed, the Colonial Office, in the White Paper which was presented to the House, stated quite clearly its own doubts about the future.
5.30 p.m.
It pointed out that in a number of the Territories, revenues have fallen, and, in some cases, are still likely to fall, that recurrent charges are rising, and that ordinary expenditure is rising as a result both of increasing costs and the residual expenditure arising out of past developments: for example, the cost of running new schools and other social services.
Nevertheless, in spite of these fears, the Minister informs us that the Government are satisfied that this further assistance, together with the utilisation of their own resources and other available sources of external finance, should enable the colonial Governments to maintain the pace of development. These words "the pace of development" should be noted. We are satisfied that, now that a great deal of priming has gone on as a result of the operation of the Acts in the last 10 years, greater demands than ever are likely to be made and the pace of development scarcely maintained let alone accelerated.
In these circumstances, we urge the Government to look again at the amount of money made available under the Bill. We recognise that, obviously, development can proceed only so far as the Colonial Territories themselves are actually associated with it. That means that their own resources have to be called up to help the work forward. One knows that there are limits to which the poorer Territories can go. It seems to us that that is all the more reason why this country should be as generous as possible in helping the colonial Governments forward in the task of building up their countries.
We appreciate, too, that there is a shortage of those special skills—those technicians and other professional classes—on which development depends. We know that to a great extent this shortage hampers the work which would otherwise go forward. What we are proposing is that there should be a much greater drive on the part of the Government and of the colonial Governments in the training of people in those skills and technical work which development calls for. Instead of merely making the pace in the light of present circumstances, we should go all out to alter circumstances, so that technicians may come into the field, and the skilled labour called for

should be there so that the work may be done.
It is difficult for us on this side of the House to measure the requirements of the schemes and programmes likely to be adopted, but it seems to us, as we look at the tremendous need for development in the Colonial Territories, that they include the improvement of health the expansion of educational facilities, the construction of utility and public works, and the great work which must go on in agriculture, the building of new works, such as irrigation, and so on.
All this must depend on a very comprehensive programme, and we cannot imagine that the limited amount of money made available in the Bill for the next five years will meet the case. It is because we are conscious of the desperate need, of the expectations of the people, of the pressures which are being applied in this country to go forward faster than we are now doing, that the Amendment is submitted.
During the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill, I said that we had good cause to congratulate ourselves on the way in which social and economic progress had been made over the past 10 years. I thought that, to some limited extent, social and economic progress had kept pace with political development. I would remind the Committee, however, that in the colonial world today there are the greatest forces and influences at work building up and driving ahead in regard to political development. If political development is to be genuine and real, these social services must be established and economic development achieved by which independence or self-government can be secured.
Therefore, it is all the more important that, because of the pace of political growth and the upsurge of nationalism in these Territories, our social and economic progress should be related to these political advances. Therefore, because of the desperate need in all these Territories, because of the fact that many of the Colonies are reaching the limit of the contributions which they can make, we ask that the provision of the Bill should be larger than it actually is in the sense that the £120 million now available can be utilised in the next three years. I therefore trust that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Mrs. Eirene White: I wish to support the arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones). When we discussed this matter in general terms on Second Reading, I thought that we received a very unconvincing defence from the Government on why they thought the proposals in the Bill for expenditure were adequate. We have had 10 years of post-war experience in this matter of colonial development and welfare. There was some development during the war, particularly in the West Indies, but we have had recent experience covering a period of 10 years.
When we began with the 1945 Act, it was true to say that there were considerable difficulties in the way of advance—shortages of raw materials, of machinery, plant and equipment, and so on. There were also shortages, to which my right hon. Friend referred, of persons experienced in these various fields and of specialists of one kind or another, from engineers to geologists. There was also a certain lack of experience, in the administration of the Territories themselves, in dealing with this type of development, which has varied from one Territory to another. Some had long been living on a shoestring, so that their administrators never had much hope of carrying out schemes which they had kept in their pigeon-holes for many years.
Surely, these conditions have now changed, or should have changed, after this experience of the last 10 years. We have now, to a fairly considerable degree at least, overcome the shortages of the early post-war years, on the purely physical side; and we ought by now, through the experience gained, to have been able to recruit more people on the technical side. Therefore, on this ground alone, we should be in a position not merely to maintain the pace but to increase it, and that is the burden of our argument.
We are perfectly well aware that the full amounts available in the period which is just coming to an end have not been spent. That has been due to the abnormal conditions which have prevailed during the past 10 years, but that is surely no argument for suggesting that the same conditions should handicap advance in the coming five years. Therefore, it seems to me that we should have from the Government a far more convincing

defence of their proposals than we have had heretofore.
On Second Reading, the Minister of State said that all the schemes had been very carefully considered. I have no doubt that they have, but is the right hon. Gentleman fully satisfied that every Administration is really prepared to undertake all that it should in the next five years, and to have some consideration, as my right hon. Friend suggested, for the quickening pace of political consciousness in some, at least, of the Territories concerned? For us to be satisfied in the next five years with the pace of development which has been sustained during the past 10 years is surely a defeatist attitude.
The White Paper makes it clear that in at least some of the Territories it will not be as easy for them by themselves, with their own resources, to provide as much as hitherto. Therefore, there are certain Territories which will need extra help. In the few paragraphs in the White Paper which refer to future policy, mention is, of course, made of other assistance. But I am not sure that the House has ever been fully informed of the full scope of this other assistance.
I wonder if the Minister can tell us just how much assistance we receive for Colonial Territories from the United States of America. I shall be interested to know what that figure is and how that aid is distributed among the different parts of the Colonial Empire. We have, of course, the reports of the International Bank and can find out what assistance it is prepared to give, but I think that we should be told why it is that today we are not in a position to overcome many of the difficulties which undoubtedly faced us in earlier years.
Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication as to how matters now stand on the technical side? Surely, we must have made some progress with some of the types of technical assistance which we found it very difficult to supply earlier. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information regarding research and development work proper? I know that we had to get geologists from the United States for research work in Africa. Have we been able to train any geologists in the Commonwealth? I think we should know that before simply agreeing to the suggestions made by the Government for


what we consider to be an inadequate programme for the next five years.

Mr. Bernard Braine: I am all for flexibility in planning. One deals with so many imponderables where the Colonial Territories are concerned that it is desirable to have flexibility. I remember that when the world rice situation became desperate in 1951, 1952, and 1953, the present Government made special provision which might have been put under the heading of colonial development and welfare, but which was additional to the moneys already voted by Parliament. In other words, if a special need arises one can, I think, rely upon the present Administration to recognise it, and to act accordingly.

Mr. James Johnson: Can the hon. Gentleman say why, when the rice position in the world is so much easier, Mauritius has to pay £56 a ton for it? As perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows, this fact has been criticised by the "Financial Times," and yet he says that in the past the Government gave subsidies to keep down the cost of living in the Colonies.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Braine: The hon. Gentleman will recollect that during the period of the rice crisis, rice was being exported from Burma at between £70 and £80 a ton. Indeed, it was Government trading in rice, plus, of course, the extraordinary shortages which were an aftermath of the war in South-East Asia, that, in the view of many experts, caused such acute difficulties in those years. I do not want to be deflected from the—

Mr. James Griffiths: What, I wonder, is sending up the price of tea these days?

Mr. Braine: If I followed the right hon. Gentleman into that kind of partisan argument, then you, Sir Charles, would very quickly call me to order.

Mr. Griffiths: I was only asking a question which I am asked by my constituents. That is all.

Mr. Braine: Of course, one of the reasons for the increase in the price of tea is the export duties which producing countries have been slapping on in order

to ensure that they get a larger return out of a commodity which is in short supply. In that connection, they have been taking the advice of the hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) and of other hon. Members opposite.
The difficulty over rice was, of course, that the producers were holding up consumer countries—particularly Malaya—to ransom at a time when the rice production in Siam scarcely warranted it. An extremely difficult situation arose, and, as a consequence, resulting from pressure from, I think, both sides of the House, the Government took special measures in 1952–53 to step up rice production in the Colonial Territories. I merely use that as an illustration of what can be done to meet a special need should it arise.
The case for this Amendment is that more money can and should be spent. The limiting factor in colonial development during the past 10 years has not been the availability of money. The two right hon. Gentlemen opposite know full well that the limiting factor has been, and, to some extent, still continues to be the availability of administrative, technical and specialist expertise. The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) very properly referred to a shortage of geologists.
Of course, one reason for the shortage is the immense expansion in all the technical services of the Colonial Territories and the fact that the demand is outrunning the supply. Nevertheless, there have been numerous schemes, as right hon. Gentlemen opposite will remember, which have been delayed and held up, not for lack of money but for the lack of the right kind of expertise at the right time. Other schemes have been held up by the lack of the right equipment and became of delays in the delivery of machinery and plant.
I agree, of course, that the pace of economic advance in the Colonial Territories is quickening and that we should adjust ourselves by way of the aid that we are here giving to see that that pace is not retarded. The great problem which faces us in the Colonial Territories is to ensure that their economic and social change is speeded up so as to keep pace with their political change. Political leaders in the Colonies do not take much notice of the economic and social realities. If self-government, when it comes, does not rest


upon the basis of a viable economy and a reasonable social organisation, it is likely very quickly to become a snare and a delusion.
All I ask is that, in regard to this Amendment, we should look at the situation in perspective. Gross capital formation in the Colonial Territories has doubled since the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) was Secretary of State for the Colonies. That, of course, is due to the greater inflow of private capital that has been taking place in recent years which, in itself, is a sure sign of confidence in colonial prospects.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems about capital formation in the Colonies now is that it is not as well distributed as it ought to be? Look at the way in which capital is flowing into the Copper Belt. That has nothing to do with Colonies but with the world situation. Is not the problem that there are areas where private capital is flowing in all the time and other areas where it is not flowing in? Does that not mean that we ought to have more funds available, and to distribute them to areas which do not attract private capital?

Mr. Braine: I do not quarrel with that statement. We get sterling reserves and the surpluses of development boards and marketing boards concentrated in those Territories where the pace of development is quickest, but those are precisely the Territories where it is envisaged that the demand will become even greater.
I agree that our planning should be sufficiently flexible to make allowance for increased demand from the poorer Territories. That is the whole object of colonial development and welfare legislation. All I am saying is that I think that this Amendment is unreal because, in the last 10 years, out of the £140 million voted by Parliament, only £100 million has been spent. In other words, more money has been available than the Colonies—both the rich ones, where progress is greatest, and the poor ones, where progress is retarded—have been able to use.
Under the Bill, we shall have available the £40 million unspent balance of the £140 million originally voted by Parliament, plus £80 million of new money to

be spent in a period of five years. That means that we are proposing to spend more than twice as much money in the next five years than was spent in the last 10 years.

Mr. Griffiths: Proportionately.

Mr. Braine: Yes, proportionately we are spending at twice the rate at which we have been spending in the last 10 years. An hon. Gentleman says, "Why not?" The answer to that is that those responsible for framing this policy have taken all the factors into account and adjusted the figures accordingly.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: Why not increase it more?

Mr. Braine: Because we are dealing here with realities.
The other point which I think is important is that this is not the only money being spent on development in the Colonies. It is fashionable in some circles to think that only public money is of any importance in the development of Colonial Territories. In fact, for every £1 which we are to devote to colonial development in the next five years under the Bill, the Colonies themselves, out of their own public funds or by way of loan, will contribute £4. That is an indication of their growing health and vitality.
Yet that in itself is only a part of what will be undertaken. Private enterprise itself—not only the great expatriate firms operating in the Colonies but local industries, too—is getting under way.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Does not that look as if more money is required, and is not it better, in that case, to employ public money rather than private investment, which is going to rake off the good of the results?

Mr. Braine: I do not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument.
I should have thought that if health and vitality are to be brought to the Colonial Territories and the living standards raised, there should be both public and private investment. The economy should be broadened as widely as possible. If it is possible for local African business men to establish businesses, to expand businesses and to save money, surely that is all part and parcel of the larger job,


to which we are lending ourselves, of equipping these people to stand on their own feet in the conditions of the modern world.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I do not object to private enterprise investing its money in speculation or development. I was raising an entirely different point. The hon. Gentleman was arguing that the sum now mentioned in the Bill is sufficient and that more money is not necessary. He then proceeded to argue that more money would have to be found, and that one of the components in providing that money would be private enterprise, about which I do not object. I am asking, in those circumstances, if money is to be forthcoming and is required, why should a little more money from public funds not be provided. Instead of the profit going into private pockets it would then go for the benefit of colonial development itself.

Mr. Braine: I do not propose to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman in that kind of argument.
The sole purpose of my intervention was to say that it is not the amount of money that matters; it is the availability of the resources for development. Past experience has shown that it has not always been the amount of money which has determined the rate of development; it has been the availability of the necessary resources. If the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot seize that point, he has not followed anything which has been said in the debate so far.
All that I would say is that there is considerable evidence—I have given some of it in the course of my remarks—of growth and expansion in the Colonial Territories. There is obviously a limit at any given time to that growth and expansion, and, having regard to the fact that we are to spend in the next five years at double the rate that we have done in the last 10, I see no cause whatever for accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that while we have been spending in the last five or 10 years in the light of our programmes of development, we have been hampered all along the line because of the shortage of capital and of the kind of materials,

equipment, and consumer goods essential for development? We have not been able to spend fully. Therefore, when he suggests that we are now going to spend twice as much as we spent in the previous period, his argument falls to the ground. We did not spend in the previous period—and Parliament criticised us for not spending—largely because the necessary equipment and capital goods were not available.
In regard to the point about the resources of the Territories, surely the White Paper of the Government points out that in some Colonies the local resources are now reaching a limit, and with new recurrent expenditure great difficulties are bound to arise. Therefore, it becomes all the more necessary that more capital and money should be available from outside to carry forward development.

Mr. Braine: The important point is that under the Bill not only is more money made available, but the very nature of colonial development and welfare legislation allows that flexibility which will take account of the other factors which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.
We all know that British Guiana received last year and the year before more C.D. and W. money per capita of the population than Nigeria. I do not know the basis upon which one Colony is selected for more favourable treatment than another. I can assume only that the interests of British Guiana were regarded at that time as greater than those of Nigeria, and I see no particular reason to fear that those Territories most in need will not receive more favourable consideration from the Government under this scheme.
I cannot see what the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are getting at. More money is made available under this Bill. Let us see how we go along from here. Merely to vote large sums of money which bear no relation to the realities of the situation, which are two-fold—the availability of expertise and equipment and the capacity of the Territory to absorb capital—would make nonsense of colonial development. I suggest, therefore, that there is no case whatever for the Committee to accept this Amendment.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. J. Johnson: I was delighted to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine). As he went along he seemed to me to be, metaphorically, crossing the Floor. He has now become a member of the school to whom pounds, shillings, and pence are meaningless symbols, and he has arrived at the position at which we were when we were in power from 1945 to 1950.

Mr. Braine: The hon. Member will remember that that was the doctrine of the Greenwood school. It was under the Dalton school that pounds, shillings, and pence became meaningless.

Mr. Johnson: I hope, at any rate, that the hon. Member gets a song in his heart in the same way as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton).
Nobody would deny the hon. Gentleman's main thesis that, in a given moment of time, the amount to invest in a Colony will be determined by the capacity of the Colony to bear it. Take the case of a Colony like Nigeria where, in the Northern Territory, there is one veterinary surgeon for 20 million animals. Of course, we should get more. We would like more, and I want to tell the hon. Gentleman why I think we ought to get more. Again, at Lagos, there is one European surgeon—an Irishman—in the hospital, when, of course, we need a dozen doctors.
A few moments ago the hon. Member asked why Guiana got more money than Nigeria. He is not quite so simple as all that. He knows as well as anybody that if a Colony has a little bit of bother and becomes awkward, then at once we give our attention to it. It is not for philanthropic reasons that Guiana has got £8 million in this connection, and if he wants to know why there are not more district officers and a thicker administration on the ground in the Colonies, let him turn his mind to Kenya. Kenya is disturbed and, in the past, there was not so much spent there as some of us would have liked. Kenya today needs 100 more district officers, and it deserves them. It is getting them today, but they should have been available years ago, particularly in the Kikuyu land. It seems to me like cloud-cuckoo-land that these Colonies should get the materials such as steel

for docks and harbours after we have had to discipline the native population, as, for example, in Guiana.
Let us look at last Wednesday's debate. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock) interrupted my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) to say:
I am inclined to agree that more money should be provided,
unlike his hon. Friend the Member for Billericay sitting below him—
To help us, will the right hon. Gentleman"—
that was, my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly,—
say how much he would suggest?
When we were in power we had a lot of questions about doing more put to us by the present Prime Minister.

Mr. J. Griffiths: As a matter of fact, I think it is in order for me to harness the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock) in support of the Amendment we have put forward suggesting that we should spend this money in three years, and I anticipate that he will be with us in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Johnson: I was going to say that I hope he will be with us on his feet in the Lobby.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: I have learned a little in the last five years. I remember that in the last Parliament, when the then Labour Government announced charges on teeth and spectacles, I heard appalling speeches from the supporters of the then Government condemning them, and afterwards they went into the Division Lobby to vote for the charges. I have learned a bit since.

Mr. Johnson: We are discussing colonial development and welfare. This is not a hypothetical case about teeth or spectacles. The hon. Member is on record, and we hope that he will later get on his feet and walk into a certain Lobby with us. He suggests spending more money, and here is an Amendment which should suit him. We hope to be able to telescope into three years what it is proposed to spend in five years. That shows how urgent we think the matter is and how keen we are to spend this money.
There are arguments against going too quickly in the light of local conditions. There are some economists who would argue that if we spend too much too quickly in a particularly undeveloped area we are liable to have galloping inflation. That may be so in some parts, but I should like to hear the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) on this subject, because he has had valuable experience in such territories. I should like to have his valuable and personal experience of how much a particular territory can absorb.
Last week, the Minister of State gave vent to these statements:
Staff has to be recruited"—
Of course it has and, if Kenya can have it soon, then the other Colonies can go up the queue and get their staff sooner than expected.
… surveys undertaken, equipment built up and so on.
What about engines to get to the coalfields of the Southern Provinces of Tanganyika and opening up the hinterland where so much wealth is?
The right hon. Gentleman said:
In the long view it is a steady effort over a period of years, and not a sudden, frantic burst of activity—which may have been inadequately planned—which counts.
Whose fault is that? I thought it rather queer for the Minister to talk about inadequate plans. I thought all these Colonies had plenty of plans made by competent, capable men on the spot and that it was really only a question of the time to start and, of course, getting the materials wherewith to do the job. I should not have thought that in any of the Colonies—certainly not in the ones I know—a start would be made on a scheme "inadequately planned." I should have thought they had been waiting so long that they would know exactly what to do when the time arrived.
Then there is this argument about inflation. Mr. Oliver Lyttelton, now Lord Chandos, has often been quoted as talking about investing in a deficit. Who wants to invest a deficit in a Colony? If a Colony is hard up, there is no deficit in the United Kingdom; and hence the whole point of the Colonial Development and Welfare Scheme is that if there are deficits in territories like Gambia we in the United Kingdom, who are more

happily endowed with coal and other resources, should give some of our surplus to the Colonies needing them.
Again I want to quote what the Minister said last Wednesday when he put forward his old bogey that we could not afford it. I was really staggered to hear him quoting the late Mr. Oliver Stanley when he introduced the 1945 Measure. He said, quoting the late Mr. Stanley, that it would not be
'a very good bargain for the Colonial Empire if it was accompanied by the bankruptcy of the Mother country.' … That is a factor which we must bear in mind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1955; Vol. 536, c. 1137, 1217, and 1218.]
Does anyone really think we shall bankrupt the United Kingdom because we spend another £10, £20 or £30 million on the Colonial Empire? I should not have thought that there was anything in that argument at all. It is true that it will mean some denial, some abstinence on our part; if we are to help those territories, we shall have to tighten our belts in some way or other. If any hon. Member opposite does not believe our sincerity on this side, I advise him to look at the proceedings of our annual conference in Scarborough in October, when Mr. Sam Watson of the National Mineworkers' Union put the position quite clearly before the people of this country.
We on this side are determined that more money shall be spent. By telescoping the period to three years we mean to indicate to people here and in the Colonial Territories our sense of the urgency of this job which has to be done.

Sir John Barlow: The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) said that there would be galloping inflation if we spent too much money too quickly in a poor territory. If my economics are correct, provided sufficient consumable goods arrive in the territory, there will be galloping consumption as well and no harm done to anyone. Provided that there are sufficient consumable goods to meet the expenditure, no great harm is done.

Mr. J. Johnson: This is a travesty of my argument. I said that if one invested capital in a backward territory and paid paper money in wages on the spot to the local population, one might cause galloping inflation if goods were not available. If we cannot send Lancashire


cotton goods, for example, let us send Japanese goods to take up the slack.

Sir J. Barlow: I shall not answer that point now but come to it later.
As the Committee knows, I have been engaged in colonial development in different parts of the world for probably 30 years. The subject is very near to my heart. The rate of expenditure is a most difficult problem. During recent years it has been almost impossible to spend as quickly as the House would have desired, owing to the difficulty of getting the technical experts and the goods required on the spot. That position has gradually changed, but I still think that the suggested raising of the amount to be spent from £25 million a year to £30 million a year is quite sufficient for the next five years.
It seems a little strange that in many of the Colonial Territories we are pouring forth money—quite rightly—in welfare and development of various kinds in a comparatively short period when, in many cases, we are likely to give those territories self-government. I should have thought that the proper thing would have been to lend the money rather than to give it as outright gifts now. According to the Colonial Secretary, much of the money will be spent on roads and communications and electricity, as well as on universities, education and other things.
That is a very valuable contribution to colonial development. I suggest that it would be only just that, after a period of years when the country concerned is greatly enriched by that expenditure, it should recompense us in some way. The proper way would be to charge a suitable rate of interest after, say, five, seven or 10 years. That has not been mentioned, nor will I pursue it, as it might be rather wide of the mark in this debate.
6.15 p.m.
Referring to the point raised by the hon. Member for Rugby about consumable goods, I can assure the Committee that it is a little difficult for some Lancashire Members to substantiate the expenditure of these vast amounts of money when some of the Colonies—and I specifically say some—immediately renounce Lancashire textiles and open wide their doors to the cheapest Japanese and other textiles available. It is very difficult for the Lancashire textile voter to appreciate

that point, and I hope that the Government will bear it in mind later on.
In many cases, Lancashire people are very magnanimous, and only too anxious to help the Colonies to develop, but it is most difficult for them to see the rightness of first giving away this money and then seeing the doors of some Colonial Territories closed absolutely to Lancashire and other British goods.

Mr. Johnson: Can the hon. Member point to any Colony where the door is closed in the way he suggests? Where Lancashire cloths or goods are dear or unavailable, surely Japanese or Indian goods could come in. They need to come in. Would the hon. Member deny poor people access to supplies?

Sir J. Barlow: I think that it would be out of order to carry that argument very far, but I can assure the hon. Member that there are markets—such as Singapore and certain African markets—which, to all intents and purposes, are closed to Lancashire goods even when readily available in the quantities required.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: The hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) said he had played a large part in the development of various Colonial Territories, but in this country he is far more interested in farming. I recall that a few months ago the Minister of Agriculture said that the deficiency payments and production grants would amount this year to substantially more than £200 million. Ten days ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the amount would be over £250 million. I do not contest that they may be necessary but if we can afford these substantial grants to the home farmers, surely we ought not to be so niggardly as to quibble about £25 to £30 million for the 90 million people in our Colonial Territories.
I should have liked the Minister to have produced a balance sheet showing how much, over recent years, this country has benefited financially from its connection with our Colonial Territories and how much, in proportion, those Territories have really benefited from our grants. For all the arguments which have been adduced on this side of the Committee I have every sympathy, and I support the Amendment.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): As the Amendment stands, its purpose is to increase the volume of C.D. and W. assistance over a period of three years, but the right hon. Gentleman has been very frank in admitting that the Amendment is an attempt to produce more money for the scheme. In other words, the suggestions made a few nights ago for increasing the total amount of money to be provided are to be put over in this way by making its expenditure effective for three years.
The principle which governs the sums which are to be provided under the C.D. and W. Acts is that no more should be provided than it is estimated can usefully be spent in the period in question. On that basis the Amendment would imply that £120 million could all be spent in the three years 1955 to 1958. That brings up the average from the present £14 million a year to £40 million a year.
The total Governmental development expenditure in the Colonies is now running at a rate of £110 million a year. In the view of the Government, it would be physically impossible to boost C.D. and W. expenditure from £14 million a year to £40 million a year immediately—that is to say, unless we were to take over on C.D. and W. funds charges, such as charges on loans and so on, which are only properly carried by local resources. In fact, if we tried to set about spending £120 million in three years we should have to start by spending £20 million in the first year, £40 million in the second year, and build up to £60 million in the third year.

Mr. John Dugdale: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he says "loans and so on which are only properly carried by local resources"? What sort of things has he in mind? Surely a loan is one alternative and a C.D. and W. grant is another.

Mr. Hopkinson: There are certain charges which have to be met by the local government. The servicing of loans is one that I had in mind.
The suggestion here is presumably that we should take over these charges and pay them from C.D. and W. funds. We believe that that is undesirable. With total Governmental development expenditure in the Colonies running at £110

million a year, C.D. and W. funds would soon be meeting nearly 50 per cent. of the total. I cannot believe that that really represents the view of the Opposition. Certainly it can hardly be the view of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), who the other day asked why the Colonial Territories did not undertake more taxation of their own.
The next question I should like to ask the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) is this. Is it his intention that the same scale of C.D. and W. assistance should be continued after 1958? Would we continue on the same scale? If we were suddenly to drop back to £14 million from £20 million it would make it impossible for the Colonial Territories to plan. The most important thing from the point of view of the colonial governments receiving aid from C.D. and W. funds is that they should know ahead how much can be drawn. That is the object of providing in this Bill for an amount of £120 million over the next five years.
The Amendment, as I see it, disregards, first of all, the physical limitations on the rapid expansion of colonial development up to a figure such as is contemplated. We must have reference not only to the physical assets but also to the training of officials and technicians to whom the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) referred. They are certainly more plentiful than they were, but we are still short of them in a great many fields. The hon. Lady will see, in paragraph 65 of the White Paper, that more than 200 geologists, geophysicists and chemists have been recruited since 1945, which I think is a good figure.

Mrs. White: Why cannot we speed up recruitment?

Mr. Hopkinson: We are speeding it up, but we cannot accelerate it to a point at which we can move from £14 million to £40 million in one year.

Mr. J. Johnson: Is it not possible to get Germans or Americans or other non-nationals to come in? I think some have been obtained. Is there a wider field to be explored?

Mr. Hopkinson: We have always been perfectly willing to facilitate the recruitment of foreign technicians for work for


which they are suited, such as irrigation engineers and so on. We are very glad to get them, but we are still very short of technicians.
The Amendment also disregards the limitations which are imposed by the burden of residual recurrent charges arising out of existing development and, of course, future development, especially expansion of the social services. It is a real danger to press on too fast with that development if it is to be impossible for the Colonies themselves to carry it on. We must not disregard that point.
Then I think we must consider that many Colonies are able, from their own revenues and local resources, to meet the cost of their own development. That is particularly true of the Territories which are nearing self-government. I have in mind places like the Gold Coast which it is only right should bear an increasing part of the cost of their own development.
Again, much of the development is, and properly should be, paid for by the loans to which my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) referred. He spoke of the need for increasing the number of such loans. I think he had in mind not only loans which are raised in the London market but also loans directly from Her Majesty's Government. In fact, those are given from C.D. and W. funds for particular purposes. The Amendment would be exaggerating the rôle which C.D. and W. funds ought to play in colonial development. In our view, there is no case for the grant of assistance on the scale which this Amendment suggests.
Quite apart from the question whether the Amendment could be made to work, I should like to say something on the general question of finances, to which reference has been made today. As I said just now, the most important thing is that Governments should know what funds will be available for a reasonable period ahead. The question of how long that period should be is no new one. It has been discussed in the past, and five years has been chosen as the most suitable period for this purpose.
I would remind the right hon. Member for Llanelly that, following the advice of the Conference of Financial and Development Secretaries of the various colonial Governments which he convened

in London in June, 1951—and it is no secret, because reference to the conference has been made in "The Colonial Territories 1951–52," Cmd. 8553—the decision was taken that five years was the most appropriate period for the C.D. and W. funds to run. If the period were only three years, we should very soon have Governments asking whether they could look ahead beyond that period, and asking, for example, about the future of the Swynnerton agricultural plan for Kenya. In fact, it would make complete nonsense of the whole conception of statutory periods if we were to adopt a period as short as three years.

Mrs. White: I think the right hon. Gentleman realises that this period of three years should not be taken too literally. It is simply that within the terms of the Money Resolution this was the only way open to us to suggest that more should be spent.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Hopkinson: That may be so, but I must be allowed to take Amendments put down by the official Opposition as being seriously intended, because that is how they will be read outside the House.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Opposition have been handicapped in this matter because he and his right hon. Friends drew the Money Resolution so narrowly that we are prohibited from putting down Amendments in the form which we should like.

Mr. Hopkinson: I will return to the argument which has been put forward—the argument which was advanced by right hon. Gentlemen opposite the other day and which has been stressed again today, that £120 million is woefully inadequate. We do not believe that that is the case.
We have not given the matter consideration in an airy way, as the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East suggested; the matter has been gone into over a period of months in consultation with the different Governments, who have put forward their ideas and their forecasts of what they might be able to spend on the basis of various hypotheses. From a study of this information we have been able to arrive at what we believe to be the right sum. It is a sum which is based on need and on what can reasonably be spent over


that period, and it allows for an increase of 70 per cent. in annual expenditure over the present rate of C.D. and W. expenditure.
We were asked the other day whether we could provide information showing how this sum was calculated. As I have said, it was based on the ideas of the colonial Governments themselves, on their general forecasts and on their own development plans. Those plans are going along independently of C.D. and W. assistance, and although they take into consideration what the Governments may receive from CD. and W. funds, they also involve finance from a great many other sources, such as loans, in some cases the Colombo Plan and in some cases American technical assistance, to which the hon. Lady referred.
I want to stress our gratitude to the United States Government for the help which they have given us, both in financial assistance—which, during their financial year 1953–54, amounted to £1¾ million and which has also involved a loan of £2,390,000 for development at Mombasa and Tanga—and also in technical assistance by the provision of experts to different Colonial Territories. Last autumn, I saw a team of American experts at work in British Guiana, with their administrative director, their agronomists, their construction engineers, their husbandry officers, their soil survey technicians, and so on. In this case the University of Maryland is running the scheme.
We are grateful for this technical assistance from the United States Government, and I want to take this opportunity of expressing the thanks of Her Majesty's Government for it.

Mr. Dugdale: While I agree that we are rightly grateful for this technical assistance, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain why he is grateful for receiving a sum of money from the United States when he says we have enough money and need no more? The two statements contradict each other.

Mr. Hopkinson: Had the right hon. Gentleman listened to what I said he would have heard me say that the bulk of that money is in the form of loans for specific purposes, such as large schemes. I referred to schemes at Mombasa and

Tanga. Above all, it is in the form of technicians and experts, and I have already explained that we are extremely short of technicians and experts. We are most grateful to the United States Government for making these gentlemen available.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) referred to C.D. and W. aid to British Guiana, which, as everyone knows, has been speeded up in the past year. I should not want anyone to go away with the idea that it is only the bad boys who get the money and that it is only where we have trouble, as for instance Kenya or Malaya or British Guiana, that money will be spent. That is not the case. A great deal of money is being spent elsewhere.
Admittedly an emergency of any kind is bound to lead to expenditure, although not necessarily of C.D. and W. money, but I want it to be understood by other Colonial Territories that that idea does not enter into the Government's mind in any planning which we do. We certainly discriminate in favour of the poorer Colonies, such as British Somaliland and other places, but the allocation is not on the basis of bad behaviour.
The hon. Member for Rugby also said that we must tighten our belts. I entirely agree with him. If we are to give the help which we wish to give to our Colonial Territories, we shall have to tighten our belts and be willing to make sacrifices. We cannot expect to have higher wages in our Colonies or any of the other under-developed countries without an increase in the price of their products. That should be borne in mind when complaints are made from time to time about the rise in the cost of tea, for instance, although that has nothing to do with C.D. and W. funds. Let us bear in mind that the workers of Ceylon and India have had great increases in wages over the past years which have had a good deal to do with it.

Mr. J. Johnson: Would the right hon. Gentleman also address some words to the tea companies?

Mr. Hopkinson: I think that is quite outside the scope of the Bill.
I have tried to deal with the main reasons for which, in the Government's


view, the Amendment is unacceptable. I hope I have convinced the Opposition that the Amendment would not achieve the purpose which they have in mind and which we commend. We all want to help the Colonies as best we can. There is no dispute between us on that point. But we are convinced that it is not possible to spend money on the scale suggested in the Amendment, and we therefore hope that it will not be pressed to a Division.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The purpose of the Amendment is to underline in Committee and to seek to write into the Bill the major suggestion we made on Second Reading. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), my hon. Friends and I devoted our speeches in the main to saying, first, that we welcomed the Bill and that we thought that this instrument of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act had proved its value in practice; and to adding that, on looking to the next five years against the background which we put before the House, we believed that development ought to be speeded up.
I think it is essential in Committee that we should briefly repeat the argument. First, we said, all that happens if development merely maintains its pace is that in five years time the Colonies will be poorer than they are now. Nobody will deny that. If it merely keeps pace with the present rate and if populations are increasing at a rate which means that they will be 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. higher in five years time than they are now, then the Colonies will be poorer. That is the first point.

Mr. Hopkinson: I should like to make clear what I said in my winding-up speech the other night. Although the rate is not rising and the speed of development will not be increased, in fact the tempo has already been increased. What we have to do is to maintain this increased tempo. That will not mean that at the end of the period the Colonies will be poorer. It will mean that they will be richer because the increased tempo has been maintained.

Mr. Griffiths: That is where we disagree. I think this is one of the major problems of the world—that in all the under-developed countries the tempo of increasing population is exceeding the

tempo of economic development. I do not want to pursue that further because it might be out of order, but the United Nations have a document on this subject and I thought it was beyond question and was regarded as one of the major challenges to our democratic world.
As I understood it, the view put forward by the Government is not that they are against voting more money because they object to giving more money or giving more help under C.D. and W. The Minister used words which we shall see in HANSARD tomorrow, and which I hope do not represent the view of the Government. He said it is possible to exaggerate the value of Colonial Development and Welfare. Does that mean that public development must have some pre-determined relationship to private development, or is the sum we are discussing now to be considered in relation to what can be spent with the resources and staff available?
In my view, the most important kinds of development needed in the Colonies in the next five years are the kinds of development which private enterprise will not undertake. I am not moralising; it is a fact. The most important development needed is increasing agricultural production, increasing production of food. In African Colonies, even if they are to stay as they are—even to maintain the existing standard of life of the population we will need a 2 per cent. increase in food production. Whilst private enterprise might be all right for cash crops, what we have to do is to improve resources very quickly in the next few years, for production by peasant farmers in the Colonies. The biggest contribution that can be made is by the development of co-operation in all its forms among the peasant peoples.
We begin, therefore, by saying that against that background there is a need for stepping up the pace because of the increase in population. Secondly, everywhere in all these territories there is a demand for a higher standard of life. I think we all accept that. Our success depends on whether we can meet that demand. The whole world is deeply worried about poverty in all these underdeveloped areas. This is not a purely colonial problem. It is to be found in its most acute form in territories which, in the technical sense, are not Colonies, but it does exist in the Colonies as well.
If we are to keep pace with the increasing population and meet the demand for higher standards, it seems essential that we should increase the pace of development. We found in the White Paper that Her Majesty's Government were satisfied—I am summarising, but I hope I am quoting fairly—that the amount of money provided under the Bill with the other resources, loans and so on which would be available to Colonial Governments would enable them to maintain the pace of development. This comes down to the view we put forward and seek to cover by this Amendment that, having regard to the increasing population and the demand for a higher standard of life, to maintain the pace is not enough, but we have to increase the pace.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I read the same phrase in the White Paper after the speech of the right hon. Member and took it that the pace of development meant, not the velocity of production, but acceleration in production. I think he has misread the phrase to refer to the ordinary velocity of production.

Mr. Griffiths: If I have misread it, all I can say is that I put that interpretation on the paragraph in the debate on Second Reading. It was my privilege to follow the Secretary of State, and my interpretation was not denied or contradicted by Ministers on the Front Bench.

Mr. Hopkinson: Oh yes, it was.

Mr. Griffiths: Very well, do we understand that the pace is to be increased in the next five years? It must be one or the other. It has either to be maintained or to be increased. If it is to be increased, is the increase we suggest in our Amendment too big? We have to remember that this is not the comparison between £14 million per annum three years ago, five years ago, or six years ago and now. What we are voting is money which has to be converted into resources, plant, equipment, schools, hospitals and other things. We have stressed in all our discussions with our people at all our conferences and elsewhere that when we say we are going to help people in the Colonies and under-developed areas, that does not mean simply to vote money in a Bill, but to give them resources, perhaps resources which we should like to use at home.
6.45 p.m.
As I have understood, the case of the Government so far has been that we cannot spend more. For that reason I ask, as we asked before, although I do not think we have had a complete and satisfactory answer, supposing the Colonial Territories were asked, "Can you use more resources and increase the pace of development in the next five years," am I to understand that the answer is "no" and is "no" in regard to all of them? When development is needed by us we can get it very quickly. I am not complaining about that but asking the Committee to realise it. If it is a question of getting more copper, what stops us? Nothing, of course not—that is one of the problems. The Minister knows perfectly well that it is an imperative need, and I am not criticising it. What we see is that the Colonies which can provide things the world needs are developing more quickly than those which cannot do so, and it is of the utmost importance to have some balance in the matter.
I am sure the real bottleneck is in technical skill. I know this is a problem, and I asked about it on Second Reading. I pointed out how important it was to get all the steps taken by C.D. and W, the Colombo Plan and the United Nations and all working in this field using what is a rather scarce commodity—technical skill at all levels—taken in the closest collaboration in the use of available resources and technical skill. It is very important to use these agencies of U.N.O., the Colombo Plan, C.D. and W. and C.D.C., which also has technical skills in this field, and to see that there is no overlapping or waste.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) will be dealing with this problem specifically later. I only mention it and will not develop it now. The need for development grows all the time, and it will grow more in the next five years. I need not remind hon. Members of the Committee that in the next five years our relationships with the Colonies will be perhaps the most important we have ever had. The Gold Coast and Nigeria are perhaps in their last five years or decade as Colonies. Surely it is essential in these final stages to step up development. Their success as democratic, independent nations is not only a matter of real concern and pride to this


House and the country, but for the whole world.
We heard with pleasure last night that the efforts made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and his colleagues and continued by the present Government for a Caribbean Federation are nearing fruition. I think we can look to a future in which they will form a Dominion in, say, five years, or 10 years. Does not that mean that we should make a special effort to increase the pace of development in the Caribbeans? Do we want them to be a Dominion under their present structure, basis and standard of life? Is that not another reason, a political reason, of immense importance and significance why we should increase the pace? For all those reasons, I think we ought to increase the pace of development.
We ought to speed up very quickly the training of technicians in the Colonies. We have not done enough, and we are still not doing enough. We ought to be doing very much more.

Mr. Frederic Harris: If it is agreed, as obviously it is, that we are spending more in the Colonies today and will spend more in the future, surely, if the right hon. Gentleman feels that we should spend even more than that, he should give the basis for his figures.

Mr. Griffiths: What we say is that this money should be spent in three years instead of five years. I have already asked the Minister this question. Will he say that this is all that the Colonies can spend on development—in other words, that if we vote this money, all that the Colonies need and think they can do in development in the next five years will be completely fulfilled by this programme? I do not believe so. The figures are an estimate, as they have got to be. I am convinced that there ought to be a drive and an urge for quicker development and that we ought to take urgent steps, which can be taken, to quicken the pace of development.
Against the background of increasing population, of a demand for a higher standard of life and of quickening political tempo, I can only add this. Members of the Committee will know that originally we voted £140 million and that there have been occasions when we have come here to make other grants—for example,

for British Guiana, British Honduras and Kenya. That ought to show us all how essential it is that we should take all the steps available to us, in every way possible, to quicken development.
It was for that purpose that we moved the Amendment. It was not in the form in which we should have liked to move it. Therefore, I was not deploying my case that I could prove that we could spend this money within three years. It was because we believed that within the years, which will be the crucial period, we could spend more.
One has only to look at the White Paper and to remember what happens with all these plans. In the first year, we spent £6 million. The figure grew until in 1951 we were spending £14 million, and last year we spent £14 million; the figure has not gone up in the last three years. If expenditure has risen from £6 to £14 million and the pace has continued to grow, because the material and political needs are present, I think that we could, and should, be able to spend this money in the three years. I believe that if we set about it, we could do it.
When the need arises elsewhere, the pace quickens very rapidly. I want to see us devoting the same urge to quickening the pace of Colonial development as we do when there is need for the raising of our own welfare, for our own future and our own safety. It is for those reasons that we move the Amendment in the only form in which we can do it, emphasising in Committee what we emphasised during Second Reading, that in our view we ought to do everything we possibly can to quicken the pace of development.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, at the end to insert:
(b) in the case of schemes for providing education, health services, housing and water supplies, twelve million pounds.
During the discussion on the Money Resolution, I drew the attention of the Committee to the need for expenditure on the social services. I move this Amendment to elicit much more information than one was able to get at that stage on how much of the grants which the Government intend to make during the next five years will, in fact be devoted to the social services.
The words in the Amendment which describe those social services
education, health services, housing and water supplies
are taken from the White Paper, and are the words in which the expenditure for the last eight years was summarised on page 8. That expenditure represented, as the White Paper shows, 40 per cent. of the total expenditure in the eight years from 1st April, 1946, to 31st March, 1954. As the Committee will see, my Amendment suggests a similar proportion.
The £12 million mentioned in the Amendment is 40 per cent, of the £30 million which is the total named later in the subsection relating to expenditure. In absolute terms, it is roughly double the expenditure per annum of the previous period. As we have already heard, that is what the Government propose—an expenditure roughly double in each year.
I have not done what I might have liked to do by proposing an actual increase in the monetary expenditure on education, health, housing, and water supplies beyond what, as far as one can guess, the Government may intend. I have moved an Amendment suggesting the same sort of proportion. Although I should have liked to suggest a larger sum, I did not wish to be met by an objection that I was proposing so much to be spent on social services that there would be nothing left for economic development. I do not, of course, want to do that.
I think, however, that the question of the proportion that the social service expenditure bears to the expenditure on the more specifically economic subjects, like communications, agriculture, fisheries, forestry, and so on, merits a good deal of examination. I should like to know what the Government's intentions are about it.
The "Economist," at the week-end, contained an interesting article on this general subject and on the White Paper in particular. In the course of that article, the "Economist" said:
On the whole, economic development has been given priority in the plans. This principle has not always been pushed as far as some economists would like; the relative allocation to social and welfare objects, compared with such directly productive ends as agriculture or roads, has sometimes drawn adverse comment.

That is true; it has sometimes drawn adverse comment, and there are economists who have argued in that way.
The "Economist" sums up the kind of argument which is used:
that a very modest investment in bringing medical science to bear can be balanced only by a far heavier outlay in raising agricultural productivity by modern technology.
The "Economist" itself, apparently, does not hold that view. Its article does not support the argument that we ought to beware of social service expenditure at this time lest we greatly increase the population thereby and make our problem of economic development all the more serious.
The "Economist" seems to reject, without specifically saying so, the argument that we ought to cut down—or, at any rate, maintain at a low level—all our health and education expenditures, and particularly the health expenditures, in order not to encourage too rapid an increase of population. I hope that tonight the Minister will tell us that he certainly rejects that argument too.
7.0 p.m.
These expenditures on social services are not only humanitarian. They are not only justified because they save lives or prolong life. They are justified from a more economic point of view, especially because they help to produce healthy and educated workers. It is common ground among everybody who discusses these subjects that one cannot maintain an actively productive community, really beginning to approach the tempo of the 20th century, unless the workpeople have a decent education and are free from the debilitating effects of tropical diseases like malaria and yaws which have hitherto beset them. Therefore, social service expenditure is worth while on that ground.
It is also worth while economically as an incentive in itself. I did not appreciate that until some years ago I went to Africa and was especially asked about incentive goods by the residents of the various communities which I visited. I was told that the local population, having so little upon which to spend their wages and their time, were perhaps not inclined to work as hard as they could have done, and I was asked what we were going to do about it. When I inquired on what they wanted to spend their incomes, I


found when I spoke to the workers themselves, and not to the shopkeepers, that above all they wanted education.
This passionate desire of the people in our Colonial Territories for education should be taken into account, even strictly from the economic point of view. The education of women or of girl children is bound to contribute an almost untold quality of value to ensuring social stability and a progressive outlook in these developing communities. Its importance cannot be exaggerated economically or socially.
The huge increases of population which have taken place in some of these Colonies in recent years have increased the social needs before they have provided the labour to satisfy them. The mouths to be fed increase before the hands that go with the mouths are able to produce. Therefore, for the next few years at any rate, one surely ought to contemplate an increased proportion of social service expenditure as against more strictly economic expenditure.
I would plead particularly for the smaller Colonies, about which a great deal has been said today. The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs said in our previous debate, and again today, that no more money should be provided than can be applied usefully in the period. He said again today that the sums are based on need and on what can reasonably be spent. I want to know whether that is literally true of every one of the smaller Colonies. Have the sums allocated to them for the coming five-year period in respect of social services, education, housing, water supplies, and medical care in no case been cut below the needs, and below what can reasonably be spent?
Do they adequately cover what can reasonably be spent, or has there been any trimming down of requests put forward by the colonial Governments? I can only illustrate what I have in my mind by giving a particular example. As I told the Minister that I should do, I draw it from British Honduras. It is known that the leaders of the majority party in the Legislature there, the People's United Party, when they came over to London in January, came to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies for more money than was provided for in their coming plan for 1955–60.
The first question is whether any more was given. Did they get something more than had been originally provided? Did they get all that they asked for? If they did not, why not? If they did not get any more, why not? Were their requests all "off the mark" altogether? Were they all projects that were not needed, or upon which money could not usefully be spent? I should like to know.
I find, for example, that in the memorandum which these leaders circulated to hon. Members who met them when they came here, they said:
The Education grant sought would be used to provide better physical surroundings for primary schools and secondary schools, assist secondary schools in securing qualified staffs in suitable numbers …
I presume that they would not have put that in the memorandum if there had been provision in the previous plan for doing these things.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am not certain what argument the right hon. Gentleman is developing, whether it is a specific case or, as he said at the beginning, an illustration. He seems to me to be developing a specific case which goes beyond the Amendment.

Mr. Marquand: It is an illustration which I hope is very much to the point and which will be valuable to the Committee in showing precisely, as a specific example and not in generalities, the kind of request which can be made and which, as far as one can see, is needed by the smaller territories the future of which is being planned under the scheme which we are discussing today.
I certainly wish to use it as no more than an example, supplementing that, if I may, by asking the Minister if it is true that up to the present in that territory no assistance at all has been given to secondary education from C.D. and W. funds. If that is an example of expenditure where C.D. and W. funds fail to meet the needs, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's argument that the sums for which he is asking are based on need and on what can reasonably be spent is shown to have been somewhat inaccurate, and that there is some hole in his argument that what he is asking is all that is reasonably needed.
It was also argued by the right hon. Gentleman in an earlier speech that there


was no need to provide any additional money for any of these purposes because the limiting factor was not money but resources. His argument was that we were not placing these limits on proposed expenditure because we were not agreeing to grant the money but because the resources are not there on which to spend the money. I wonder whether that applies to his proposals with regard to the provision of medical care and the feeding of children in schools. Is it true, for example, that there is not sufficient milk available in this country for him to buy dried milk and send it to British Honduras and other tropical territories where it is sorely needed to preserve and save the lives of children who cannot get milk because there are insufficient cattle?
At present, there is no public sanitation in Belize. Is it true that insufficient resources are available to provide for the draining of that city? We all look forward to the possibility of increasing the population of British Honduras very greatly, possibly by immigration. Draining the city would rid the people of disease which is caused by the throwing of excreta into public canals; there are at present 800 deaths a year from gastroenteritis.
Cleaning up the town would make it a more attractive place to would-be immigrants. Surely we have resources—perhaps the plan provides for this—for a comparatively simple scheme of that kind. I believe there is only one qualified member of an engineering institution in the whole of British Honduras. Surely it would be possible to provide one or two qualified people to go there from this country for a time to help to improve the amenities of Belize.
I have quoted these examples—not at too great a length, I hope—to show the doubt that exists in my mind as to whether the amount of money, so far as we can guess it—the Amendment is a probing one with the object of ascertaining the amount—provided for the next five years under the Bill for social services is sufficient, and whether in many instances the resources exist but the money has not been provided.
It was in order to ask questions of that kind that I put down my Amendment. I should like to know what proportion of the total sum to be provided is likely to

go to social services—I realise that a specific answer cannot be given—and whether need could have been satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman had made money available.

Sir Leslie Plummer: I rise to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand). It used to be my view, until I had practical experience, that the people who were undertaking development enterprises, whether public or private, in our Colonial Territories ought in very large measure to be responsible for the social services referred to in the Amendment. I took the view that organisations going into primitive countries to start developments with the intention either of making money out of them, or of creating a situation which was advantageous to the country from which they came, should take on the burden and the responsibility of providing the houses, schools and hospitals for the colonial peoples who would work in those enterprises.
I have changed my view. I believe that the provision of the social services should be—in fact must be—the paramount responsibility of the Colonial Development and Welfare fund. For reasons which I am about to give, they should not be the responsibility of either private enterprise or public organisations.
7.15 p.m.
When a large-scale development is started in a colonial country, it is reasonable to assume that it is done at the expense of certain tribal habits and customs, that it interferes in some way with the community life which has been built up over a long period of years, and that certain customs and, indeed, taboos are altered. I suggest that it is far too dangerous a thing for these changes to be made by people who do not start off with a proper understanding of and sympathy for the historic reasons why local conditions existed. People who go in to exploit a country for either public or private interests ought not, therefore, to be charged with the responsibility for interfering so materially in the lives of the people as social services are devised to do.
The Colonial Development and Welfare fund is the instrument for insuring that the social services in Colonial Territories are improved. I almost said "maintained," but if they do not exist they have


to be inaugurated. One of the most important developments is water supplies. Few social installations give so much employment both to people at home—although that is not a consideration about which we should worry at this stage—and to people in Colonial Territories as water supplies. Few social installations create wealth so rapidly as this one does.
In the Masai country in East Africa, I have seen Masai herdsmen driving their zebu or humped cattle for several days from their grazing grounds to a water hole and then for several days from the water hole to their grazing grounds. The age of maturity of such animals is often ridiculously late—six, seven and even eight years of age—because of inadequate water supplies. I believe that, roughly speaking, if one has the money, one can find water almost anywhere Water engineers tell me that one can get it in the Sahara if one is rich enough. That is an exaggeration, but water is available in the Masai grazing grounds if one will only spend the money on sinking the wells and building dams and reservoirs. Proper water supplies would mean that the cattle would calve more regularly and come to maturity quicker, and there would be more for the people in the Colony to eat. I am never tired of repeating that, on the whole, colonial peoples are better off physically and mentally when they have enough to cat than when they do not have enough.

Mr. Dugdale: Everybody is.

Sir L. Plummer: There is a belief among some people in this country that a coloured colonial can get along with much less to eat than a white man can. There is a tradition that a handful of rice is all that some people require. The fact is that the installation of a water supply can rapidly make a material change in people's lives. My right hon. Friend gave the example of British Honduras. He was quoting some examples of what he has seen there. It would be worth the attention of the Committee for a moment to consider the position of Jamaica.
Some of us in London are having constituency problems because of the mass of Jamaicans coming to this country for very good reasons. They are coming because at best they have 24 per cent. unemployment and at worse 44 per cent. unemployment in Jamaica. There are 610,000

workers out of a population of 1½ million. They have terrible seasonal unemployment in the sugar industry, and they get charity to the extent of 2s. to 3s. a week.
The conditions of the water supply in Jamaica are bad. One has poor water supplies and high unemployment. I suggest that concentration on the provision of these necessary things, like water supplies, could have three beneficial effects. It could help with irrigation and so provide an alternative crop to this monoculture which is killing so many of our Colonies; it could contribute to helping to solve the unemployment problem and add to the happiness and the health of the people.
I see from the latest report that we are spending some £250,000 on the provision of water supplies for 1½ million people. In the rural district council in which I live, there are 10,000 people and £600,000 is to be spent on a water scheme. It may be necessary for us to cut down some of our demands, as the Minister said in the discussion we had on the previous Amendment, in favour of that policy.
I want to deal with the necessity for education, technical education and agricultural education. I believe that we have to step up both. In countries where black men are beginning to work side by side with white men, as in the Copper Belt in Northern Rhodesia, we cannot continue to preserve a situation where the black man is only to be the most humble hewer of wood and drawer of water and is to be denied for all time the chance of becoming a skilled worker, owning a motor car and living in a house with a refrigerator. We know that he cannot get these things until he has the technical education which enables him to do the work which brings him those rewards.
We may send out Mr. Dalgleish to Northern Rhodesia, or British Guiana, or any other country, and he will give us his expert, first-class advice. Indeed, he produced a magnificent report on the situation in the Copper Belt in Northern Rhodesia. But unless we support that with really imaginative schemes of technical education and deny the argument that there must always be a submerged black proletariat which does the humblest of jobs and gets the lowest subsistence rate, we just entirely and utterly fail in our purpose.
The amount of agricultural education that we have to provide is enormous. I heard the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations a little while ago saying rather soto voce that encouraging peasant producers is encouraging private enterprise. Look what we are doing in Tanganyika today in providing education for peasant farmers. A bright boy is taken away to be educated at a mission school. If he is very bright and gets the opportunity, he can go to a better school, where he is taught the rudiments of scientific agriculture. At least he is taught to understand that it is better to plant one's seed when the soil is ripe than to rely on a couple of crossed-sticks lying in the light of the moon, or voodoo of that kind.
He is taught that there are certain things one can do to see that one produces a successful small farm, or shamba as it is called. The boy goes home from the school and goes to the farm and starts to put into practice that which he has learnt at the school, which is probably 300 or 400 miles away. He has no follow-up, no extension course. There is not a sufficient staff of agricultural advisers to come and see what that chap is doing.
So he operates this farm with the education he has had against the laughter, sneers and jeers of the elders, who believe it is all absolute nonsense. It happens that this fellow loses a crop one year, not because he has behaved badly, but because the weather has failed. At once the elders of the tribe say, "Of course you lost it. We all lost it. It is because we did not put the cooking pots into a certain position at a certain time of night."
Back that boy goes to becoming an ignorant peasant cultivator, because we invested a little money in his education but we were not prepared to invest that amount of money needed to make sure that he became a convinced agricultural scientist, if one can use that term of a peasant cultivator, to teach him properly and sustain him with his knowledge and support him with his own propaganda among his own villagers. That cannot be done by private enterprise. That has to be done by an authority, by a Government authority, and the backing for that authority should be the Colonial Development and Welfare fund.
Those of us who have had the good fortune to travel to the Colonies know that our medical services are deplorable. There are areas of our Colonial Territories where there is one doctor for every 100,000 people, or even more than 100,000 people. Great medical work is conducted, not so much by the Colonial Governments, who are unable to do what they want to do, because they do not have the money, but by missions. That is the case in East Africa.
That is not enough. Private enterprise and public enterprise have both tried to make their contribution in medical services and both, by and large, have failed. One of the reasons is that they have had to compete in an unplanned manner for the doctors, medical orderlies, surgeons, opticians, gynaecologists and other staff who are wanted not only in the Colonies, but in this country, too.
Therefore, I come back to the original theme that this essential, vital work of housing, water, technical education and medical services falls entirely and properly into the orbit of the Colonial Development and Welfare fund. In these cases the demand on the material resources is not so great. One does not have to build great concrete schools in which to teach people in tropical countries. One can give them good education in huts. There is no need for expensive installations. Good hospitals and first-aid centres need not be as permanent as in this country.
The requirements of water supplies are different of course. What is required is a determination by the Government to spend the money and ceaselessly to search for the technologists and scientists who are absolutely necessary. My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East has made the case for greater expenditure, and he has put the figure at £12 million. I do not think that he meant that £12 million is one penny more or less a fixed figure. He is trying to preserve of the money to be spent a proper proportion for the social services.
I believe that if we are to go ahead on the basis of over-emphasising expenditure on industrial and agricultural development and neglecting proper expenditure on the social services, we shall create such a discontent that we shall fail in our object of creating fine, healthy, intelligent and able workers and craftsmen; so


much so that much of the effort and money which we are now saying should be spent on Colonial development will be lost.

7.30 p.m.

Sir J.Barlow: I am glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) because, for once, I agree with a great deal of what he said, especially regarding agriculture and agricultural education.
When one goes round the Colonies and visits various places, one realises very quickly that probably the most important and crucial point is the increase in agriculture and the increase in food production, whatever the crops, in order to improve the standard of living of the people of that country. As it happens, most of our Colonies are primarily interested in agricultural crops, whether cattle, grain, tea, rubber, and so forth.
When I am in a Colonial Territory, I try to visit the agricultural research centre and demonstration farms which usually exist. If one spends a few hours with these people, one can see what is likely to be the standard of nutrition for the inhabitants of that country in the next 10 years.
I regard the question of agricultural education as probably more important than any other kind of education, more important even than any other welfare work. If we get people with a greater understanding and knowledge of agriculture, the other knowledge will follow in its wake. It was my good fortune a few days ago to be in Entebbe. Although I was there for only two nights, I was invited to visit the agricultural research centre. I must say that I was greatly impressed with what I saw there.
Of course, they have the difficulties of dealing with all kinds of cattle diseases to which cattle in this country are subject, and many tropical diseases as well. The difficulties of the veterinary surgeons in these countries, first, in finding a remedy for these diseases, and then in disseminating the information among Africans in all parts of the country, are very great indeed.
Although I was there for only a very short time, I was greatly impressed with what I saw, and I feel that the standard of living of Africans generally depends very much on the calibre of the personnel

working at the agricultural research centres and the experimental farms. For that reason, I hope that the Colonial Office will pay great attention to this side of the problem. I do not want to develop the matter, but only to mention it briefly, because I agree with the hon. Gentleman—I think that on both sides of the Committee there is general agreement—that, when we really consider the matter, agricultural education is most important.

Mrs. White: I want briefly to support the Amendment. The Minister will realise that we are trying to be more specific and more closely analytical in this Amendment than we could be on the more general Amendment which was discussed earlier.
The Minister tried to give the impression to the House and the country, and, presumably, to the Colonial Territories, that everything that can be done physically is done, and that there are no financial barriers in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, but that is the impression which he tried to give in reply to the debate on a previous Amendment—that the barrier was not finance. He said there may be other barriers, such as supplies of raw materials, but that it was not largely a matter of finance.
I really think that that assertion ought to be challenged, because, while it certainly may be true in some parts and in respect of some schemes, it is not universally true, and it would be wrong for this complacent attitude to go unchallenged. I should like to give one example. We have been discussing the great importance of education, particularly education in rural areas. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the former Colonial Secretary, Viscount Chandos, when the emergency in Kenya became acute, agreed to the expenditure of a fairly considerable sum on agricultural development, but refused, or said he was not in a position to offer—perhaps because it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who refused—the money which was asked for at the same time for education.
It was required particularly for education in rural areas of Kenya, including the education of women. I am certain that anyone with a superficial knowledge


of Kenya, and of the Kikuyu country in particular, will agree that until the women there are better educated, we shall not get the economic incentive which we need, among other things, to improve the standard of life.
The Government then said they found themselves quite unable to find the £6 million asked for on that occasion. I remember questioning the former Colonial Secretary upon this matter in this House. That was not a situation in which the people on the spot, who, quite properly, should be consulted on all these schemes, felt that the money could not be spent; quite the contrary.
So much do they think that the money can be spent that they have gone across the Atlantic to ask for it, and I hope they will get it. They are laying particular emphasis on this matter of the education of women. I believe that discussions are now going on, and I very much hope that they will be successful. That is an instance which we should bring forward publicly to show that there are occasions when the people on the spot believe that money should be spent, and that it would be spent on an objective which we all think is desirable. A positive request was made for funds to carry out the scheme, and that request was not met. I think that is an example of our having not, in fact, fulfilled the demands which have been made upon us.
It is true that we have voted fairly considerable sums for agricultural development in Kenya, which we hope will be spent over a fairly short period, and that is very interesting. When I was out there last summer, I discussed the rehabilitation of some of the people detained in the camps for suspected complicity with Mau Mau. The officials in charge were discussing the possible resettlement of some of these persons in land settlements which were to be made available, because now, at last, they had the money with which to undertake irrigation projects.
I believe it is fair to say that, had it not been for the political emergency there, they would have had to wait a good deal longer to realise schemes which they said they had been wanting to carry out for years, but which, when they had a political emergency, became suddenly physically possible to carry out. There-

fore, I wish to reinforce the plea we have made that we should not wait for that kind of emergency before we make certain whether we have completely exhausted our physical efforts, and that we do not place any financial barrier in the way.
Turning to another territory in which the Minister knows I am interested—Nyasaland—I have looked at the figures of expenditure during the past eight years, which are given in Table 4, and I observe that we have spent, or rather contributed, only some £42,000 for technical and vocational education for eight years, and that for a country with 2½ million Africans. That is really not very much. It is the cost of a couple of classrooms in this country. In fact, even on primary education, to which we contributed rather more, our contribution was less than the cost of one technical college in my own constituency.
Over a period of eight years we spent £6,000 on higher education, including scholarships. That is rather an interesting figure, because one of the chief complaints which I heard in Nyasaland was this precise difficulty of obtaining educational facilities for the admittedly relatively few people who at the moment possess anything like the necessary qualifications. I think I am right in saying that, at the moment, there are only two students from Nyasaland in the United Kingdom at public expense. They are two girls taking domestic science courses at Bath.
Only last week some of us in this House were given information about two young men from Nyasaland who, believe it or not, had walked from Nyasaland to the Gold Coast, and who were there assisted with a passage to London by interested people. They are now attending evening classes in London, and are earning their living by day. They, evidently, are sufficiently qualified to attend evening classes in London, but cannot get the same facilities in Nyasaland, because otherwise it would be hard to believe that they would undertake such an arduous journey.
I do not believe that there need be any barrier to further educational facilities in Nyasaland, and I endorse what has been said about the extreme necessity of spending on education as much as we can possibly afford. We must spend in this direction until it hurts, because, if we do


not, we are going to be faced with the difficulties which we have already encountered in one or two of our territories, where the political aspirations far exceed the capacity of the peoples concerned. We are anxious that that should not happen, particularly in countries which do not possess very great resources of their own.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) made a very interesting speech on Second Reading about the need for bringing education to the special areas in the Colonies. Quite emphatically, there are some that are poorer than others and where the possibility of economic development is not so rapid as in some of the others. I am sure that in those territories we should be spending more on these services than we are spending at present.

Dr. H. Morgan: Although one day I want to speak at length in this House on the West Indies, I think that tonight, after the very good speeches which we have heard in this debate, one should be brief.
7.45 p.m.
In the last decade, the Colonial Office has done magnificient work in connection with the West Indies. I am not saying that conditions in the West Indies have changed completely, but great progress has been made, and the farther we get down towards Venezuela and South America the more I know about that part of the world. The work done by the Secretary of State for the Colonies and by his officers during the last decade in the field of education, in improving the condition of the Caribbean workers, and in the vocations which they follow, especially that of agriculture, has been truly magnificent. Excellent work has also been done in social development and in health.
My brother was a medical officer in Grenada, where I was born and where I spent the first 20 years of my life. In his last letter to me before he died two years ago, he wrote about the great change that had taken place during the 10 years that he was away qualifying, rather late in life, as a doctor. On his return to Grenada he noticed what a wonderful change had taken place, especially among the workers. He said that the higher classes still stood practically where they were, but that the bulk of the labouring

classes, agricultural and manual workers, had progressed magnificently.
He said that it looked as though the policy laid down by those who pleaded for the benefit of the workers—and confirmed by the Royal Commission on which were such men as Lord Moyne and Sir Walter Citrine, now Lord Citrine—in spite of all the drawbacks of climate, of poverty and of the depth of resentment felt in previous years, had borne fruit, and that there had been a remarkable improvement from the point of view of the health and education of the people, and that their general appreciation of other countries was a remarkably fine piece of social development.
I think that these things should be said by one who for many years was a severe critic of the Colonial Office. I know that since I first came to Parliament I have not led the Colonial Office any too nice a life, because I thought that it did not deserve it. But its appointment of officers during the past half decade and the way in which it has appreciated the advice given to it by those men makes me want to say quite publicly in the House of Commons that all concerned have worked magnificently.
The Island of Grenada in which I was born has progressed appreciably. The development of the Colony, the work of the higher officers who have been sent out and the appreciation of the local officers, who are also worthy of attention, has been excellent. The West Indies now stand a great chance of becoming an example of what the British can do in the way of colonial affairs as compared with South America, on the one hand, and, if necessary, North America on the other.
I hope that I am not going outside the scope of the Bill, but I desired to give praise where praise was due because, as a critic, I have often turned upside down those responsible for colonial affairs. Owing to the way in which the West Indies are being developed, I am certain that in another decade or two they will be able to stand as an example of Western colonisation. Trinidad has been immensely helped in its social conditions, in spite of the exploitation of the oil industry. It is the one place in the world in which asphalt can be found, developed and exported to this country. Oil, in conjunction with asphalt, has enabled


great progress to be made in Trinidad and in the rest of the West Indies. The other islands not so richly endowed by the gifts of God, for example, the Leeward Islands of Antigua and Dominica, have been developed out of all recognition, and the development in the Windward Islands—Grenada, St. Vincent and St. Lucia—has been great.
Anyone who saw Granada, as I did nearly 20 years ago, and saw it again much more recently—or any of the Windward Islands—will realise the magnificent work which the English public officials have done there. I used to say that only the local people could do it. I now say that the men chosen in the last two decades by the Government here have done magnificent work and devoted themselves to improving local conditions, thereby setting an example for future civil servants who are sent to the West Indies. Their work will never be forgotten.
I can only hope that the dream that many West Indians had, and still have, of a united set of islands—a federation of all the islands—each with its own Government because of its peculiar difficulties, but each united into a joint federation system of islands under one supreme head, will one day be realised. That alone will be a magnificent feature which will lead to the development of the West Indies. It will set an example—we are setting it now—to the tyrants who run South America and to the money-powered individuals in North America and the United States.
I have made these remarks without any preparation because I felt that it was my duty to make them and to give this re cognition to those whom I have criticised so often in the past. I want to let the Committee know that what I have read and heard from my friends, acquaintances and relations shows me that the work done has been superb and worthy of the highest praise.

Mr. Hopkinson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan) for the praise he has bestowed on the Government and Government services in the West Indian Islands. I feel that it is well-deserved and that it will be appreciated by them that the House shares his view in the work they have done during the past 10 years.
The Amendment was I think intended to enable the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) to argue in favour of an increase in the money available for social services. In fact, if the Amendment were passed it would have exactly the opposite effect. By setting a ceiling of £12 million, that is to say 50 per cent. of the average annual rate of £24 million which we are contemplating, it would hamper expenditure on the social services, because for the next few years, as we see it, there will be a building up of C.D. and W. expenditure to a higher figure. If we limit the expenditure to £12 million a year, then in the later years we would be getting less for social services than for other parts of the programme. Therefore, we hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not feel it necessary to press the Amendment to a Division; but, if he should do so, we ask the House to reject it.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman really wanted to emphasise interest in the social services as part of the C.D. and W. programme. In doing so, he launched the argument as to whether we were spending too much on the social side of the C.D. and W. programme and too little on the economic side, or vice versa. As he said, there was an article in the "Economist" on that point last week. The division of opinion is very wide. Probably in the House there are those who would argue both ways. What, in fact, has happened over the past nine years is that about 50 per cent. of the C.D. and W. funds has gone to the social services, and the rest has gone to economic or semi-economic programmes.
The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) the other day rather stressed the economic side as being more important at this stage. I think that one has to remember that in drawing up development programmes Colonial Governments themselves tend to emphasise economic work. That is where the money which they provide from their own resources mainly goes—to enable them to meet the recurrent charges arising from expanded social services. It has been rather left to Her Majesty's Government, through C.D. and W. funds, to provide for the capital cost of social services in various forms.
I would not disagree with anything said by the right hon. Gentleman or by hon.


Members on both sides of the House regarding the need for maintaining and improving the programme of social services, and particularly of education, in the Colonies. I emphasised that point the other day, and certainly that is the view of my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me in particular to say something about British Honduras. It is rather a good example, and I can answer his question as to how much money is to be spent on social services as compared with economic development. What happened when the new Government took power in British Honduras? They drew up a plan for colonial development and welfare assistance of £3 million for five years, and also sought assistance outside the plan for road construction, relief of loan charges, housing and provision for a sewerage system in Belize, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
The view of the Colonial Office and of my right hon. Friend was that British Honduras was over-estimating its physical capacity to undertake these development works. We have to remember that the whole territory includes only 70,000 inhabitants. There was discussion between my right hon. Friend and the delegation which we were glad to see here. They were, I think, very much impressed by what they saw, and they returned to British Honduras in good heart. As a result of the discussions my right hon. Friend was able to announce in the House on 4th November that, subject to Parliament making provision for the necessary funds, which is what we are doing now, an initial allocation of £1¼ million would be made for the next three years to enable the territory to carry on and, if possible, to improve on the present rate of expenditure on development. To this was added £300,000 from the existing allocation.
The plan itself was considered to be sound and well-based, and no part either on the economic or social services side has been cut out. In fact, the Colony are going ahead with the plan in the hope that they can show that they can profitably and efficiently spend the money which has been allocated to them for the first three years. It includes £930,000 for social services, about £250,000 of which is to be spent on education, and the balance

of the programme is for economic schemes. Housing is included, though not perhaps on as large a scale as those of us who know Belize would like.
8.0 p.m.
As yet, there is no provision for the construction of a modern sewerage system in Belize. I have no hesitation in endorsing what the right hon. Gentleman said as to the importance of that particular work, and I hope that it will come in the second phase of this plan. But it was felt that there were more important things to be done and these were included in the first phase. The right hon. Gentleman also asked about increasing the number of qualified engineers. That depends on education and the funds available for that purpose in the Colony.

Mr. Marquand: If the right hon. Gentleman is about to depart from what I said, I hope he will say something about secondary education. It is, after all, essential to have secondary education in order to produce the technicians, engineers, architects and so on. It is unfair continually to say that these skilled people do not exist if we do not try to produce them. Is it not true that in this Colony there is no Government grant at all for secondary education and that in consequence a very large proportion of the money for that purpose is, in fact, coming from the United States of America to one denomination? Would it not be better and wiser to provide some Government funds for all types of secondary education for all denominations?

Mr. Hopkinson: I regret I am not in a position to say whether any of the £250,000 is intended to be spent on secondary education. I know that in the past secondary education in the Colony has been provided by missions, very largely, as the right hon. Gentleman says, by the Roman Catholic mission from the United States. It has done very good work there, too, but certainly I am in entire agreement with him that we have got to increase secondary education in British Honduras. It is essential if we are to carry out the sort of work we have been discussing and which we favour. I will see that the point is noted in the Colonial Office.
I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), who spoke so clearly


and so persuasively, as he always does on these matters. Quite frankly, I do not think I disagree with a single word he said, except on one subject when he described the medical services in the Colonial Territories as deplorable. I do not think that that is fair on the Colonial medical services. Certainly in some parts doctors are few and far between and dispensaries are poorly equipped, scattered, and too few in number, but in the main I believe that great work is being done by the medical services in our Colonial Territories.

Sir L. Plummer: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way if only to afford me an opportunity to amend what I said, if I gave the impression that the medical services as a whole were poor. I was referring in particular to some parts of the Colonies, especially to some parts of Tanganyika. I did not mean to refer to all our Colonial Territories, but I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that in some of them the medical services leave a great deal to be desired.

Mr. Hopkinson: I am glad to hear that, because I was a little disturbed when I heard the hon. Gentleman speaking on the subject originally and I know it is not true from our own experience. This White Paper proves what is being done in eradicating malaria and many other diseases.
Apart from that, I would not disagree with anything the hon. Member said about the need for improved technical and agricultural education, and about giving what he described as the submerged black proletariat a chance to go ahead and become expert technicians so as to carry on agricultural and other kinds of development in these territories. He described the small farmers in Tanganyika and the need for expansion. I have noted what he said and we shall pass it on to the proper quarter in Tanganyika.
The emphasis in the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) was also on education. I do not think I can go into the particular suggestion which she mentioned—that £6 million should be spent on women's education in Kenya. During the height of the emergency certain things needed

to be done and in addition money was required for agricultural purposes. It was not felt that a very high proportion of the money then available for Kenya could be given for education. But the Government of Kenya have got very much in mind the need for, and improvement of, education in the Colony.
As regards Nyasaland, over the past 10 years expenditure on education has seriously lagged behind. Those of us who have been to Nyasaland can testify to that. One of the great and encouraging things which has come from what I prefer to call the Rhodesian Federation, rather than the Central African Federation, is the enormous increase in the revenues of Nyasaland and the prospect of spending far more on education—which is already being done. We can look forward to a spurt in education in Nyasaland in the near future.
I think I have dealt with most of the points raised by hon. Members and I would only return to what I said at the beginning, that I believe the right hon. Gentleman will be defeating the cause which he has so much at heart if he presses his Amendment to a Division, because I believe it would have a contrary effect to that which he intends.

Mr. Charles Royle: I apologise for the fact that I was not in the Committee when the Amendment was moved, but I felt that I wanted to say a few words on it because it is an Amendment which is concentrating on money for the social services. I have no knowledge of the British Commonwealth and its Colonies with the exception of British West Indies, but I feel it would be a desirable thing if we earmarked money for the specific purpose of the social services.
I sympathise to a large degree with my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan) in his statement about the improvement which has taken place in these matters during the past 10 years. He has more knowledge than I have of what the situation was 10 years ago, but I am still concerned lest his reference to an improvement should make us complacent about the circumstances.

Dr. Morgan: Oh no.

Mr. Royle: My own knowledge and experience of the British West Indies teach me that there is an awful lot still to be


done. The Minister of State has just referred to British Honduras where I had the opportunity of spending a few days. I am concerned that the sewage scheme is to be postponed. The vulture which they call Jim Crow is at present a protected bird because it is the only means of clearing away the refuse from the streets of Belize. It is appalling that a city has to depend on vultures to clear it of its refuse. It is very necessary that the sewerage scheme should be proceeded with at the earliest moment. In view of the terrible circumstances which prevail, my only surprise is that there is so little disease in that Colony.
Those of us who have visited Belize know the hospital. It is terribly grim. When I was there a Polish doctor was fighting very hard to provide services in what was, in effect, the only real hospital—and real is a poor word; perhaps I should say the only hospital in the whole Colony. The conditions in that wooden building were beyond description. In Antigua, in the glorious Leeward Islands, there was a similar hospital where a tremendous fight was being won by doctors and English nurses.
A more important Colony in that part of the world is, perhaps, Jamaica. I hope that Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret will see some of the things that I saw there. It might do a world of good if she did. There is the shanty town on the Spanish Town road; those thousands of twin dwellings with very little provision of water supply or sanitary conditions. Thousands of Jamaicans are compelled to live there. I was shocked to read in the Press the other day that the frontages were being painted in various colours lest Her Royal Highness should see those shanties in their very worst condition. I am told that, in a recent tuberculosis test carried out amongst the population of Jamaica, 37 per cent. of the many thousands who were tested returned a positive result.
We need to concentrate very large sums on social services. Reference has been made, for instance, to education in British Honduras. Good as it is, I am a little concerned about the secondary education provided there by United States Jesuit priests. I was very interested to hear them teaching history in that college. To boys in a British Colonial school they were teaching not British but American

history. I agree that we should know a lot about American history, but if there is to be a complete concentration on American history to the detriment of knowledge of this country, we cannot expect those boys to grow up with any high regard for Britain which is, in the main, responsible for them.
I listened with deep interest to the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) when he advocated concentration on farm education. I sympathise with him very much. At the same time, I think that the Colonial Development Corporation in its schemes throughout the Colonies might help farm education to a very great degree. That, to some extent would liberate money which could be concentrated more on the social services, so that some of the dreadful conditions in the Colonies might be alleviated. I have intervened in this debate because I fear anything like complacency with regard to our Colonies.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. J. Johnson: In view of the Minister's patently sincere remarks about education, perhaps the Under-Secretary of State, in the Minister's absence, will forgive me if I turn more particularly in this matter to Central and East Africa. It is more important that we should spend money there than in any other Colony on building up secondary education. It is there that we have begun—or shall begin—the multi-racial university college at Salisbury, but at the beginning and for many years the pattern of students, European and African, in the university college will not be a correct reflection of the pattern of population inside this new Federation.
The Minister has just spoken in quite glowing terms about the amount of money to be spent in Nyasaland, consequent on the economic benefits of the integration of the two Rhodesias and Nyasaland.

Sir L. Plummer: May I draw your attention, Sir Charles, to the fact that, in an important debate, there is only one hon. Member sitting on the benches opposite?

The Chairman: Does the hon. Member want a count?

Sir L. Plummer: No, Sir Charles.

Mr. Johnson: The Minister spoke in enthusiastic terms about the benefits, particularly educational, consequent on the integration of Nyasaland and the two Rhodesias. I estimate that, at the beginning, in the new university college, the proportion of students will be no more than one African to four Europeans, consequent, of course, upon the number of school leavers from the sixth forms of secondary schools. If we mean what we say about partnership and working out our way together in this new Federation, I hope that we shall spend money and really do something about Nyasaland and the Rhodesias in this respect.
I can fully bear out what my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) said about higher education in Nyasaland. At the moment there is only one young man in the United Kingdom on a British Council scholarship, and, as the hon. Lady so rightly said, only two young ladies are here, taking domestic science at Bath. This is not good enough. We must build up secondary education in order to lift the students to the higher stages at university college.
A word about Mauritius. On Wednesday last, in the Second Reading debate, the Minister—and of course he is obviously sincere in everything he says; I do not disbelieve that for a moment—said that we needed more schools, more teachers and hospitals and so on. Then he said:
… a too-rapid advance, especially in fields where the Government can expect no corresponding financial return, could easily lead to bankruptcy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1955; Vol. 536, c. 1217.]
Would it bankrupt Mauritius if we built one teacher training college there, or spent a few thousand pounds more on the school population? Surely if the money is United Kingdom taxpayers' money, that will not bankrupt the Colony. I cannot see the strength of that argument.
Instead of spending more and expanding education in Mauritius, we have cut the school-leaving age from 14 to 11 years. We are not now taking in youngsters under five years. It is a six-year course for children from five to 11 years of age. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) spoke a moment ago of a teaching school in Belize, British Honduras, where, instead of British or West Indian history, the students were being taught American

history. In Mauritius, I have just been informed, the teaching of English in the first year has now been stopped, and French is taught instead. I should have thought it vital that anyone beginning school life in a British Colony should be taught the British language.
These facts stick out a mile to hon. Members on this side of the Committee when the Minister speaks complacently about the expenditure of more money on advances in this sector of education and that; and then speaks of the danger of bankrupting the Colony, if more of the U.K. taxpayers' money is spent on the social services there. I wish to emphasise the vital need for secondary education, particularly in Central Africa; so that the coloured inhabitants can be equipped for university education, and take their place beside their white cousins in these multi-racial Dominions that are now beginning to emerge.

Mr. M. Follick: I have not a word to say against our colonial system. I have nothing but praise to utter for it because I happen to have been in a Negro territory which was never a Colony. In December and January I visited nearly all our own Colonies in West Africa, and the French possessions there, including the Sahara and Liberia.

Dr. Morgan: Rich man.

Mr. Follick: Liberia has never been a Colony. It was founded as a Negro republic. Whenever I hear anything about the white exploitation of the Negro, I advise people to go to a territory where there has been no white exploitation, and where they will find that the Negro exploits the Negro far worse than ever the white coloniser did, and without giving anything in return.

Dr. Morgan: The white man here does the same thing to the white worker.

Mr. Follick: We may have exploited territories, but we do put something back in return for what we take out.
In Monrovia, the capital of Liberia, there is no street. There is a little bit of asphalt road, about three miles long, which the American Firestone Company put there, leading to the port. There was no bank in Liberia until the Firestone Company needed one for its staff, and that company opened the Bank of


Monrovia. We hear complaints of education in our Colonies, but there is no education worth mentioning in Liberia. I know that I am being very severe, but I spent some time in Liberia, and I have the right to make these comparisons.
When one leaves those miserable people and goes to the Gold Coast and sees that happy race of people there, one is able to say that whatever Britain took out she put back. On the Gold Coast are the finest university buildings I have ever seen in my life—and I have seen a good many university buildings. The people there are proud of that university. They say, "We have paid for this ourselves, and only the best was good enough for us." They have the best talent that Britain can supply to help them to build up this fine university. They were telling me there, "We bring the boys from the villages to this university, and when they go back to the villages they will never be satisfied again to have the villages as they were." That is the purpose of the university, to improve those parts of the territory which need improving.
I have been in a great number of our Colonies, including British Honduras, and I have written books about them. Some of my books are in the Library here.

Mr. Royle: Published by Eyre and Spottiswoode, too.

Mr. Follick: Sometimes my colleagues here read my books and talk to me about them, but they do not seem to buy them.
We have nothing to be ashamed of in our colonial system. Anyone going to East Africa and seeing that lovely city of Nairobi appreciates what Britain has done for East Africa. East Africa has only been a Colony for about 50 years. It started with the Uganda Railway. In Nigeria there is the largest African city, with its new university: Ibadan. People are proud to be British there, and it is evident when talking to them that they are certainly not ashamed of being British.
I had talks with high Ministers on the Gold Coast, and I asked them, "What is it you do not like?" They said, "There is nothing we do not like, but we would like independence." I said, "What sort of independence do you want—to go back

to what Liberia is, or to go forward on the way that we have set for you?" The Ministers said, "We shall require British help for a long time, but when we are independent we shall have from Britain the help that we require and we shall not have that help imposed upon us."
There is no feeling of animosity towards Britain in those Colonies. One cannot talk about the Colonies as though they are all our enemies. They are not—neither Nigeria, the Gold Coast nor any part of West Africa. It is true that we get such ritual proceedings as Mau Mau and the same sort of thing in Basutoland, but we have to cope with that. We have to educate these people. We have to show them what Britain has done for the world. It would have been far better if America, instead of dumping these shiploads of released Negro slaves in Africa—

The Deputy-Chairman: I doubt very much whether that is in any way related to the Amendment.

Mr. Follick: I am trying to show how the amount of money we have spent in those Colonies has brought them—

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not the subject of the Amendment, which deals with social services.

Mr. Follick: It is the social services of which we are proud in those countries—social services for which we have paid, many of them from our own taxation in this country. I should therefore like to add, in conclusion, with your permission, Sir Rhys, that he who decries the British colonial system does not know what he is talking about, and probably has never been to the Colonies.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Marquand: The Minister of State has no doubt gone to seek some well-deserved refreshment. He has been extremely patient today. I also thank him for the reply he gave to the short debate on the Amendment I moved. His reply considerably modified—and I was glad to note it—his earlier argument that expenditure on colonial development and welfare was restricted only by the needs and the resources. The whole of his reply showed that there were points at which expenditure was restricted by monetary considerations.
He is on sound ground, however, in saying that my suggestion for a £12 million maximum per annum would defeat its own purpose towards the end of the period. Incidentally, that argument probably applies also to the £30 million mentioned in paragraph (b). We will let that pass.
Before I say the words which obviously are expected of me, I want to refer to one or two comments made about education in British Honduras. It is very easy, when we speak here, to create some misunderstandings which do a great deal of harm in Colonial Territories and cause a great deal of heart-burning and injuries. Having been to British Honduras since my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Royle), I can tell him that things have undoubtedly changed a great deal since he was there. If he visited St. John's College today I do not think he would have cause to make the criticisms which he made this afternoon. My remarks about the money were intended to indicate that in my opinion we should spend more of our own money, as well as have the Americans spend their money, but the particular criticism which my hon. Friend made is no longer applicable, and I am sure my hon. Friend is glad to hear it.

Mr. Royle: I am glad to hear it.

Mr. Marquand: It is with pleasure that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Colonel O. E. Crosthwaite-Eyre: During the debate there have been many remarks from both sides of the Committee on the principles of economic aid which hon. Members wish to see extended to the Colonies. The one thing which I believe is clear is that hon. Members in all quarters realise that it is not possible to provide a complete answer by any one single Act.
Many references have been made, for instance, to what may be achieved by the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, the Colonial Development Corporation, and such other sources as private industry or private enterprise. But the one point which emerges from the debate

is that although by way of the colonial development and welfare funds we may provide a basis on which the Colonies may hope to produce a future themselves, it is useless—and this was brought out in the speeches by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and others—to believe that by voting these sums of money we shall introduce a sense of security to the Colonies concerned. We can only provide the means.
Having listened to the Second Reading debate and to most of the arguments advanced this afternoon, I regret that it was felt that the limited sums of money which we are voting this afternoon can be the only means to a permanent end. I am certain the Committee will realise that that is not so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies referred to this Measure as being a means of "priming the pump." I should like to view it as a basis on which both sides can agree. Let us remember that the end to which we are agreeing is something which is not covered by the Bill; therefore I am not going further into that matter.
There is one great point in this Bill with which I think we should deal. That is the necessity to see that the Colonies themselves use the balances at their disposal for their own use. We have heard particularly this afternoon many remarks about rich Colonies and poor Colonies. We have heard people talking glibly about West Africa and of glowing opportunities, and we have heard remarks about other less fortunate Colonies, particularly Somaliland. What is really the point is that we should see that the wealth now in our Colonies should be used to the best advantage to help the ends to which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have set their minds.
Before dealing with any figures, I would remind the Committee that it is only a short time ago—in 1949—that the sums available for this purpose totalled only £670 million. By 1952, they had risen to £1,222 million and today they are £1,400 million. If we examine that sum we are told that the reserves due to colonial banks and marketing boards total £440 million. If we take the sums which my right hon. Friend said were sums the Government needed, in addition to keep for their own particular purposes—

The Deputy-Chairman: The speech of the hon. and gallant Member appears now to be a Second Reading speech. The debate is limited to what is actually in the Clause itself.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I had hoped it was in order—if not I hope I shall be corrected—to say what were the sums available under this Clause and how they should be distributed.
The whole purpose of my argument was to say that the sums available under this Clause should be distributed to those Colonies which could not undertake expenditure out of the figures which I have mentioned to this House. I must apologise, but I thought it necessary to state those sums in order to develop my argument. If I may put it in the shortest form, there is £650 million available outside the provisions of this Clause. I want to see that the money now provided by this Clause is properly applied to those Colonies which cannot, out of their own resources, afford the necessary amount. That is the whole purpose of my argument.
We have, for instance, Colonies which are subject to currency boards. At the moment they have to provide 100 per cent. cover against whatever local note issue they may make. I think that is unnecessary. I think that this is not only necessary but quite apart from any known economic theory. So far as I know, it has never been the rule for any currency, except in this instance, to require 100 per cent. cover. Even in the days, we may remember, when we were on the gold standard it was never necessary for any central bank to keep more than 40 per cent., or, in some cases, 22 per cent. or 23 per cent., of coverage against their issue. Why should it be necessary for these Colonies which we are discussing now to keep 100 per cent. coverage?
My right hon. Friend, no doubt, will reply that he has made provision by saying that 20 to 30 per cent., as I understand the figures, may now be covered by investment in local issues. But even so, those local issues have in turn to be sponsored by the Crown Agents for the Colonies and supported through the Government market in London, which produces no relaxation of this amount of

credit which, I feel, should be available to the Colony concerned.
Table I in the White Paper sets out the figures in respect of grants to the various Colonies under the Bill. I find it difficult to believe that the sums that have been already authorised and are to be authorised under the Bill are really in accordance with the needs of the Colony concerned. We are told by my right hon. Friend that there is the residue from the marketing boards amounting to £140 million, and that there are other reserves.
Looking at Table I, I suggest that far too little has been given to the poor Colonies and far too much to the rich Colonies. A great case can be made that the sum mentioned in Clause I should be devoted in its entirety to those Colonies that are not supported either by the reserves of a marketing board or by the other reserves which are included in the £550 million which my right hon. Friend mentioned on Second Reading.
We are considering how best to spend this limited sum of money which will total, over five years, £120 million. It is equally clear from the figures that a sum of £650 million is available from the Colonies themselves. Let us see that the money which we are voting will be made available to those Colonies which need it most.
My right hon. Friend has referred to the Somaliland Protectorate. We see from Table I that that is one of the few Colonies in which nothing has been provided from local sources or from Colonial Development and Welfare funds. That is a pattern to follow, because the money which it is proposed to spend can only provide a background for future economic development. It is no good pretending that anything more can be done. Education, technical opportunities, and the rest are all very well and good if there is the economic background to support our proposals. We can build schools, hospitals, railways, roads, and anything else, but without an economic background they mean nothing.
I am again very worried when I see from Table I that in Dominica, for instance, just under £1 million has been spent and we have nothing to show for it. Only a one-phase industry of lime oil was produced, and it failed. It is no use spending money in a Colony—from whatever source that money comes—if the


results of the expenditure do not fructify and make a proper and balanced economy for the Colony concerned.
Therefore, I hope that I am in order in saying that when we spend money under this Bill we should be certain that the money spent is really going to add to the wealth and welfare of the Colony concerned. Let us not spend too much time in talking about social advancement without being certain that the economic advancement which should lie behind that social advancement is there.
8.45 p.m.
Before we approve of the Clause, we should have certain assurances from the Minister. The first is that any plans which are designed to promote social welfare are correlated and integrated with the C.D.C. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not take it amiss when I admit that I was rather unhappy when he said in his Second Reading speech that he was aware of the need for the C.D.C. and the C.D. and W.F. authorities to confer. That is not what I want. I desire that the bodies concerned shall not only be aware of what they are doing but that their plans, for hospitals, hostels, or anything else, shall be integrated to provide for a real, live community.
We should get rid of the outworn idea that the sterling balances which are held by these Colonies should be so held because of some outmoded desire by the Treasury to have a standard which bears no relation to the facts. I have mentioned the gold standard. I would only mention that in the old days these local currencies were designed to meet the immediate trading interest of a Colony which had a major port, and where the only real trade was between the merchants of the port and external traders. There was no use of the currency inland among the natives and inhabitants generally. All that has gone and the currency is now as much a valued unit of money as our own banknotes.
Why should we now demand the holding of these reserves when the Colonies could use them? These reserves were built up not only from the Colonies' own natural wealth but out of marketing boards and the like. Why should not this money be used to give greater credit and a greater opportunity to develop to

these Colonies? I am certain that we in this Committee are only too anxious to help develop the Colonies, but I am sure that there is no hon. Member on either side of the Committee who would not agree that the first job is to enable the Colonies to help themselves. We can do that by releasing these reserves and making it possible for the Colonies to use them to their own advantage.
Let us see that the money which we are voting tonight is used in those Colonies which most need it. Let us see that the reserves which the Colonies have accumulated are used for their own benefit. Above all, let us see that whatever money is spent is spent in accord with other organisations—the C.D.C.—towards a complete, unified, social structure which will in permanence benefit the Colonies concerned, and not, alas, as was often the case in the past, merely produce a one-sided economy which fails and then adds to the future problem.

Sir L. Plummer: The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) properly said that we do not contribute to the security of any Colonial Territories simply by voting sums of money here, and he has the agreement of all hon. Members on this side of the Committee in that remark. As to his argument about the use of the reserves of Colonies, I think it is best to leave it to the right hon. Gentleman to reply, and I have no doubt that the Minister will deal with the economy of the Colonies with his usual lucidity and knowledge. I am glad that I do not have to debate that issue with the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
One hon. Member argued earlier that one of the inhibiting factors in colonial development was the obtaining of the necessary experts to carry out the work that has to be done. Owing to the fact that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said, the Money Resolution was drawn rather narrowly, I was unable to move an Amendment about the sum of money which should be spent on research. I know that I should be out of order if I discussed the matter in great detail now, but on this occasion I wish to say that I consider it to be the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to ensure that the Government emphasise to the Colonial Governments the importance of research.
I believe—I have said it previously—that research must precede schemes of development, and local services must also precede such schemes. I believe that we do not begin to understand the problems that face us in our Colonies until we have undertaken the geophysical surveys which are vitally necessary if we are to launch future schemes with chances of success. We know too little about the rainfall in our Colonies, and far too little about the soil. We know almost nothing about the insect and parasites and crop diseases in some parts of the Colonies.
The people who know these things are not, I regret to say, in sufficient supply, and adequate steps to train them are not being taken. Training does not start simply by putting an advertisement in "The Times" to say that a scientific worker or a technologist of one sort or another is required.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is going a little beyond the scope of the Question.

Sir L. Plummer: What I am trying to do is to say that the amount of money provided for in the Clause—£3 million to be expended in any one year in promoting research or inquiry—should, when the Bill becomes an Act, be supplemented by a general overall instruction from the Government to the Colonial Governments indicating the way in which part, at least, of the sum should be spent in research.

The Deputy-Chairman: That does not come within the Clause.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Might I direct your attention, Sir Rhys, to Clause 1 (1, c), which contains a provision for money to be made available:
… for the purposes of schemes for promoting research or enquiry …
I should have thought that, in developing the paramount need for research, my hon. Friend was speaking within the terms of the Question.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not so. The Clause provides a sum of money for research, but a detailed discussion about the scheme of research cannot take place on the Clause.

Sir L. Plummer: Is a general study of the form of research in order, Sir Rhys?

The Deputy-Chairman: No. What it is in order to discuss is the sums that are provided.

Sir L. Plummer: Very well, Sir Rhys. Then I submit to the Government that they may yet require to have second thoughts as to whether £3 million a year for the next three years will be sufficient to supply the necessary amount of research and inquiry to be undertaken if the rest of the money provided by the Bill is profitably to be spent on the enterprises for which it is designed. It may not be too late, in another place for example, for the. Government to alter this figure. I must come to the point I was trying to make, which is that if this £3 million is to be properly spent, people must be trained to do the work and the Government should start training immediately. In fact, there has been a fair lag in time.
If I am dealing in a general form with the point of research in this country, let me put the quandary in which the Government and indeed any Government will find themselves in trying to spend this £3 million on research. If students of newspapers read "The Times" this morning, they will have found that the public appointments column was full of advertisements calling for scientists, research workers, technologists and technicians to be employed in the Government service abroad, in the Government service at home, in private enterprise abroad, and in private enterprise at home.
Each Department of Government is competing to find these necessary men. In so doing the Government are spending some of this money, this £2½ million or £3 million, in a fairly vain effort to get the men to do the work for which the sums are being made. This is a vitiation of the resources.

Dr. Morgan: How else can they get them?

Sir L. Plummer: I am coming to that point, and I am glad my hon. Friend is paying such close attention.
During the war there was a central scientific committee—I think that was what it was called—which was a committee of the Ministry of Labour and which was presided over by Lord Hankey. He had to make a survey of the scientists and technologists and those coming out of schools and universities. A register was


kept in London of those available and a proper summary kept of how their successors were being trained.
It would be a very good thing if the Colonial Office, in considering how to spend this £3 million on research, consulted those who had experience of this central scientific registry during the war to see if it is not possible to revive it and if it is still in existence to give it the necessary funds and staff. The picture so far as the Colonies are concerned could then be studied from a global point of view and the competition now going on between private enterprise and Government Departments for scientists and technologists would cease.

Mr. Hopkinson: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) raised an intricate question affecting the sterling assets which is of the greatest importance. I shall ask the Committee to bear with me while I deal with it in some detail. I could not quite follow the figure of £650 million, the figure to which he referred as being that from which we would be able to draw for investments in various forms of activity.
The Colonial reserves and assets of all kinds now amount to nearly £1,400 million, but of course for various reasons that is not by any means available for expenditure. Over £300 million consists of London reserves of the commercial banks which, of course, are liable to be drawn on at any time.
9.0 p.m.
Then, there are the sterling holdings of the colonial currency authorities, which amount to £380 million. This is the external backing for colonial currencies, and it ensures their automatic convertibility into sterling. As my hon. Friend said, they are at present backed 100 per cent. by sterling, but, in December, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations informed the House that the Secretary of State had agreed in principle that, subject to a review of individual circumstances in each territory, a part—it will only be a small part—of this backing could be used to take up locally issued securities. They would be locally issued securities, and not securities issued in London, as my hon. and gallant Friend seemed to suggest.
I do not think anyone in this House would suggest that we should do something which would in any way throw doubt on the automatic obligation of colonial currency authorities to exchange local currencies into sterling. Any level of fiduciary issue which caused a loss of confidence in colonial currencies would immediately discourage investment and slow down the rate of colonial development.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: May I ask my right hon. Friend two questions? When he talks about local issues, are they not placed through the Crown Agents? Secondly, suppose he were to reduce the backing to 50 per cent. of any local currency issue, does he think there would be any effect on the stability of that issue?

Mr. Hopkinson: As I understand the point—which was raised unexpectedly, as far as I am concerned—these issues are local issues, not placed through the Crown Agents. As regards the amount of currency for which it is necessary to maintain sterling backing, I do not think any figure has been given at all so far, and the figures which my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned are purely guesswork, as far as I know. In any case, I am certain that, from the point of view of preserving confidence in the Colonial Territories' currencies, it is essential that a very large part of the currencies should be covered by the backing of sterling assets.
My hon. and gallant Friend referred to marketing boards. There are about £140 million of sterling assets in the reserves of the marketing boards, various price assistance funds and so on. The main purpose of these funds, as hon. Members are aware, is to provide a cushion for primary producers against severe and sudden changes in price. A fair amount of their assets must be held in liquid form to enable them to meet claims which may be made upon them. Only a part of them can be made available for long-term development, but this is being done, both in the Gold Coast, and now, I understand, in Nigeria, where the Governments are intending to borrow from the marketing boards for financing their development programme.
The remaining Colonial reserves and assets amount to £550 million, including £240 million in special funds, such as


sinking funds, and savings banks, pensions and renewal funds. Some of these can be, and are, used for financing these developments, but the amount must depend on the nature of the fund and the purpose for which it was established. I think all the Colonial Governments are now aware of the need to invest as much as they can—or as much as they prudently can—of these funds locally, because they must always be ready to meet any possible claims against them.
Finally, there are the general uncommitted reserves of some £300 million of the Colonial Governments, such as general revenue balances, development funds, and so on. These have to be held against fluctuations in prosperity. This question, which has been raised by my hon. and gallant Friend, has been mentioned in some of the financial papers. It has been gone into carefully by my Department, and I feel satisfied myself—and should like to assure my hon. and gallant Friend that it is so—that from inquiries we have made, subject to minor fluctuations and changes, the maximum possible of the money available is being used for development purposes.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: On the question of the funds which my right hon. Friend has just referred to, I think he will find that they are invested in medium and long-term securities, of which the redemption is from one to 20 years. If there were an immediate fear of convertibility, or that any local currency might have to be converted to sterling, why is it that currency authority boards have on the whole invested the bulk of their funds in medium and long-term securities?

Mr. Hopkinson: I have no information on that subject before me, but my impression is that my hon. and gallant Friend is wrong, that these sums are invested in short- and medium-term securities. However, I should prefer to look into the matter, and I will write to him about it if it turns out that I am wrong on that point.
The hon. Member for Deptford referred to the question of research, on which he placed great emphasis, and its great importance, to which he very rightly drew attention. A great deal is already being done in the matter of research, and I think that the White Pa per shows how much has been accomplished in

quite a short time. At the moment, the amount is running at something over £1¼ million a year, and the suggestion is that the ceiling should now be raised to £3 million a year.
As we see it, the amount which we can spend on research will have to be stepped up gradually, in line with the whole of the stepping-up of development under these programmes. According to my information, it would be very difficult to step it up in such a way as to use as much as, say, £4 million a year in the next five years. As in all these matters, it is bound to a great extent to be a question of guesswork.
We have arrived at the best figure that we can get. There is no reason to say £3 million, £4 million or £5 million should be spent on research if we do not think such a figure would be practicable. Having gone into it as carefully as we can, £3 million a year is the sum which we estimate to be right. For that reason, I would assure the hon. Gentleman that we hope that this amount will, in fact, be sufficient in order to attain the object which he has in mind.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the Minister pay some attention to the necessity of im7 pressing upon all the available young men and women who in these days and in increasing numbers are undertaking new courses at universities and colleges the paramount importance, in their desire to serve their country, of undertaking the training which is necessary in order to turn them into research workers of all kinds, particularly in the field of agriculture? I think that the best way of doing that would be to ensure that the bigger proportion of those given opportunities for higher education were trained for this work. I have the impression that very often research is held up owing to the shortage of the middle group from the secondary schools.

The Deputy-Chairman: I regret that, important as those matters may be, they do not arise under this Clause.

Mr. Hopkinson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, which I will certainly bear in mind.
One further suggestion came from the hon. Member for Deptford which was that there should be a central scientific register. There, again, I shall certainly


look into the suggestion in order to see if it is something which we can profitably use or develop. I think that I have dealt with all the points raised in this part of the debate, and I hope that the Clause may now be passed by the Committee.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(PROVISION FOR THE NEW HEBRIDES.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Clause is something of an innovation. Before it is passed, we should have some explanation why the Clause is here at all and what are the intentions of the Government in the days ahead. In the past, we have had some difficulty in regard to the administration of the Condominium in the New Hebrides, and it would be interesting to know whether the French are to share with us the cost that is involved in these development plans.
We have had in the last year or so a very bitter disappointment in regard to the Condominium which operated in the case of the Sudan, where the contribution was almost entirely from the British side. One hopes that in the New Hebrides the contribution will be a mutual one, and that the French will share in the cost involved to something like the same extent as ourselves. In any case, because it is an innovation in respect to a con-dominion, I think that we ought to be told how the arrangements for development and welfare are to work, how they will be administered in the territory, who will be responsible for the expenditure, and what the plans of the French Government really are.

Mr. Hopkinson: This Clause dealing with the Anglo-French Condominium in the New Hebrides makes the Condominium eligible for Colonial Development and Welfare assistance, and that is all that it does. The Condominium was excluded from earlier Acts, and this Clause now brings it within the purview of the Acts. This arose as follows. The United Kingdom and French High Commissioners for the New Hebrides recommended that assistance towards a development programme in the Condominium

should be given from Colonial and Development Welfare funds and from their French equivalent. That recommendation is being considered.
It has not yet been decided whether to agree to it or not. All that the Clause does is to make it possible to agree to that request, should it be considered desirable to do so. If it is decided in principle that C.D. and W. assistance should be given to the New Hebrides, the financial arrangements will be discussed with the French Government, and, although the point has not been raised with me, I should imagine that we should discuss it on the basis of sharing equally any funds towards the development of the Condominium.
This matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) the other evening. He also put a question to me about the responsibility of the South Pacific Commission in relation to the development plans. I do not know whether I should be in order in dealing with that, but all I have to say to the House is that the British and French resident Commissioners will certainly have regard to the existence of this Commission in drawing up any development programmes which they may have for the New Hebrides.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Ede: What exactly is meant by this Clause? Does it mean that if the French will not contribute anything we shall do nothing? How far have negotiations gone? One would expect, on seeing an enabling Clause of this kind, that there was hope of using it. In the event of the French Government not being able to contribute, does it mean that nothing will be done?

Mr. Hopkinson: This is in a comparatively early stage. As this Bill was going forward it was thought convenient to include this Clause, embracing the condominium if it were desired. We shall discuss with the French Government what can be and should be done, and I have no doubt whatever that in the end the New Hebrides will get assistance from the French and British Governments towards their development programme. I cannot commit the Government at this moment as to how this is going to be carried out, because it is at an early stage.

Mr. J. Griffiths: If this Clause is passed, it will enable the British Government to make a grant whether the French did so or not.

Mr. Hopkinson: I am quite aware of that, but what I am saying is that we are not committing ourselves at this stage to doing anything either with or without the French.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(ADVISORY COMMITTEE.)

The Secretary of State shall appoint a committee of persons having special knowledge of colonial administration or of agriculture, social services and other appropriate specialities to advise him upon the expenditure of moneys provided under this Act.—[Mr. Dugdale]

Brought up and read the First time.

Mr. Dugdale: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The debate to which we listened recently, and which was initiated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), whom I am sorry to see is no longer in his place, having paid us a very short visit, was of some considerable interest, and showed the need for a new Clause such as that which I am now moving. It ranged very widely and we discussed a number of uses to which funds could or could not be put.
The object of this Clause is to see that there shall be some continuing body interested in the use to which these funds can be put. After all, we have useful and interesting discussions here on a Bill such as this but they do not last very long. They occur only when a Bill is actually before us, and the only other time when these matters can be discussed is possibly on the Estimates each year. There are many things that can be done with the sums which are being voted for colonial development and welfare. There is the question of whether they should be spent on what are called economic projects or on social services and welfare projects.
Also at issue is whether these funds should be spent on the richer Colonies or reserved more exclusively for the poorer. There is an infinite variety in the use to

which these moneys can be put. For instance, in the White Paper, which has just been issued, the schemes mentioned include drainage in Bathurst, dealing with juvenile delinquency in Malaya, and the training of nurses in the West Indies. Not only that but there is the question of whether too much money may not be given to one particular group of Colonies at the expense of the rest.
There are two very important territories that I should like to mention, and which may deserve to be given large sums of money. One was referred to by one of my hon. Friends who spoke so eloquently about the West Indies, the other is the Basutoland Protectorate, which is not a Colony but a territory to which, under the Bill, money is to be given. It may be necessary before long to develop the Protectorate very considerably. If, for instance, there should be an influx of people who want to come from South Africa to that territory, the social services there may be in need of development. I do not say that they should have priority over other things but that is an example of the kind of work which may be necessary.
All these things are discussed day by day by officials. They are very admirable officials. I have had experience of them, I have worked with them, I know how able they are, but are we to leave it entirely to them? Neither the Secretary of State, the Minister of State, nor the Under-Secretary can go into all this immense amount of detail; it would be impossible for them to do so.
To get over this difficulty my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) set up an advisory council. On that council were representatives of business and the trade union movement. Among its members were ex-Governors—and even ex-Under-Secretaries of State. It included economists, and—perhaps this is of particular importance—it had on it a man chosen not only for his ability as an economist but because he came from Jamaica and was not simply one more United Kingdom member.
This body performed very useful work, and was able to advise the Secretary of State on many problems connected with colonial development. In this new Clause we are asking that the Secretary of State shall re-establish such a body because, for some reason which we do


not understand, when this Government came into power, his predecessor decided to abolish that advisory council. We hope that the present Secretary of State will reverse Lord Chandos's decision and set up some such body to do that work.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: When the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) advocated, both on Second Reading and in an Amendment, that more money should be voted under this Bill, I had a good deal of sympathy with him because, having lived in most of the Colonies, I have a very warm affection for their peoples. I cannot, however, agree with the proposal contained in the new Clause, and there are to me many specific reasons why the Government should not accept it.
My own experience has taught me to be a very great believer in allowing the people on the spot in the various territories to run their own shows with as little interference as possible from Whitehall. They are the best judges of what is necessary for their own territories. I should have thought that there were ample safeguards. For example, in a particular territory, the Governor and his advisers, after a good deal of consideration and consultation not only with his officials, but with the unofficial members of the community, put their schemes to the Colonial Office, where there are men and women of very wide experience in these affairs. They can discuss all these schemes with the Minister and his official advisers, and do much more efficiently all that it is intended the proposed committee might do. That is my first objection to the new Clause.
The longer I live the more sceptical I become of experts. When it comes to colonial matters I think that the word has lost a good deal of its meaning. Men and women go out to these territories for a short time and then come back and pose as experts. I do not think one can get a body of men and women as efficient and expert in these matters as are those on the spot, or, indeed, in the Colonial Office.

Mr. Dugdale: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the officials concerned are experts?

Mr. Craddock: Yes, that is what I am saying. We have them in the Colonial Office. Therefore, why add another committee in addition to those excellent men and women who have had very wide experience of these problems and, indeed, whose job is to advise the Minister on these schemes?
There is another danger in having an outside body, in that there might be vested interests represented on it, persons who might push particular schemes for their own advantage rather than the advantage of a territory. That is a small danger, I admit, but it is one which should not be ignored.
Finally, I doubt whether on a committee of this description any great measure of agreement would be reached. Let me give an example of what I mean. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I were on such a committee—a presumption, I admit—for the East African Territories. I believe that for generations to come the whole future of those territories rests on agriculture. One of the greatest dangers to first-class agriculture is soil erosion. It is one of the greatest menaces to the whole of the African territories.
In 1932 I was in the Usuku part of the Eastern Province of Uganda. I stayed for a few days with a friend in his bungalow, which was surrounded by a very attractive garden. I continued to visit him from time to time, and my last visit was in 1937. In those five years his garden had disappeared. The desert had crept down over a mile in that period. That is only a small illustration of the magnitude of this problem. That is happening all over Uganda, Kenya, and Tanganyika. If I were on this suggested committee, I should advocate that greater sums of money should be devoted to that problem than to other problems.

Mr. J. Griffiths: A good reason for putting the hon. Gentleman on the committee.

Mr. Craddock: What is the use of having first-class social services, education, health housing, and all the rest if in a short time, perhaps, the people may not be able to produce enough food for their very existence?
I should like more money to be spent on training men—Africans, for example—for the local Civil Service. We talk of


new constitutions and of appointing African Ministers, but surely we know well enough in this country that good government rests largely on a first-class Civil Service. I should like more money to be spent on enabling Africans to go to Makerere, in Uganda, and then to come to this country for, say, two years to take a special course in administration so that they could go back and take their part in the British Civil Service along with Europeans in East Africa.
Those are two illustrations of where, if I were on the committee, I would press for more and more money, and, therefore, it might be that we should never get any agreement at all. Therefore, I think it is better to leave this matter to the Governors and the officials in the territories, in conjunction with Her Majesty's Ministers and their advisers at the Colonial Office.
Let me give this further illustration of how much I am inclined to dislike such committees as that proposed. It would have to issue reports, and I suggest that some of those reports might do more harm than good. We have an example of this in the Report that has been issued by the delegation from the Trusteeship Council who have recently visited Tanganyika. I believe that that delegation, in suggesting a time limit for handing over the administration, has done a very bad service to that Colony. I want to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the excellent work which the present Governor, Sir Edward Twining, is doing there.
With all our experience of administration in so many parts of the world, I do not think we need the advice of any outside body. For those reasons, I hope that the Government will not accept the new Clause.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones: The intention behind the new Clause, I think, was to discover what kind of machinery is now in operation for colonial development and welfare plans.
There has been considerable discussion today on the shape of plans and the kind of plans. These issues cannot be limited to official discussion, for many of them raise points of very deep political significance. It is true that a considerable amount of discussion takes place in the

territory before a programme is submitted. When we were in office we laid down that there should be the closest consultation with the representatives of the people concerned so that schemes forwarded should represent lay opinion as well as official opinion. I do not know how far that has been done, but now and again we hear complaints that there has been inadequate discussion with people on the spot about some of the plans included in the 10-year programmes prepared by the Colonial Governments.
It is not enough for us to rely on advisers. Indeed, when the original Act was brought before the House a White Paper accompanied it, and it was recommended that an advisory council should be set up in London which the Secretary of State could consult. The function of the advisory council was to be to keep the broad problems of colonial development very much in mind and to advise the Secretary of State about certain tendencies, the kind of balance which ought to be preserved in programmes which were submitted and a whole host of considerations which, it was felt, are important to bear in mind before plans are finally vetted and adopted in London and sums of money allocated for the respective schemes.
That Council was duly set up and at the same time there were formulated a large number of conditions and considerations for the testing of various schemes by the council in London. It will be found in the circular issued by the Secretary of State at the end of 1945 that certain proposals were laid down for the guidance of Colonial Governors and Colonial Governments and that these proposals served as a guide to them in drafting their plans, which ultimately were submitted to London. I do not know how far those conditions are operative today in schemes submitted by the Governors but I should like to know what happens when schemes are submitted by them. Presumably those schemes are vetted by officials of the Colonial Office. They recommend to the Minister whether the programme is sound or otherwise. It is they who decide whether this, that or the other is acceptable to the Secretary of State.
I submit that there is a whole variety of issues which have to be weighed. Does a scheme offered to the Secretary of State


take into consideration the possible growth of the population in a particular territory? What are the population trends? Which schemes should receive priority and why? Has a balance been established between social development plans and economic projects? What should be the allocation to all funds as between one type of scheme and another? What should be the claim of one territory against the claims of another? On what principles should these things be determined?
There are other problems such as strategic development, whether there are certain minerals, certain crops, certain agricultural produce and whether it is desirable that these things should be emphasised in one territory as against another. Many of these are political considerations and seem outside the purview of the officials of the Colonial Office. As in the past conditions were laid down, I submit that again conditions might be laid down and an appropriate body created in order that these five-year programmes may be properly vetted and certain tests applied as to whether they are adequate, whether the programmes we plan and whether the purposes of the Act of Parliament are being fulfilled.
I support the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend that the machinery should receive some attention from the House and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will inform us as to what procedures are now adopted, what arrangements now exist and whether there is an advisory body from whom the Secretary of State can draw information and guidance in regard to programmes and plans submitted to him.

Sir Arthur Colegate: I do hope my right hon. Friend will resist this new Clause. The speech we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) appeared to be conclusive against appointing the suggested committee. He said that many of these questions raised deep political considerations. I contend that deep political considerations should be discussed by the House of Commons and not by a committee. If deep political considerations arise in connection with the administration of our Colonies, those deep political considerations should be discussed by the House of Commons.
On the other hand, the right hon. Member said—this is where such a committee would be extremely weak—that it would in fact do some of the work which ought to be done by officials of the Colonial Office. He mentioned the growth of population. If officials cannot take growth of population in a Colony into consideration, the remedy is not to appoint a committee but to get rid of the officials concerned. This committee, which would be a fifth wheel to the coach, could only take responsibility away from the House of Commons or from the Secretary of State and his office.

Mr. Hopkinson: The proposal that the Colonial and Economic Development Council, as it was called, should be revived has been very carefully considered by my right hon. Friend. In the first place, one has to consider why that council was originally set up. It was not solely to deal with the colonial development and welfare plans. It had also the duty of giving general advice on economic matters to the Secretary of State. Its other function was to consider the basis of colonial development and welfare, and that it did. By the time that the former Secretary of State, my colleague Lord Chandos, took office, he found that the council had very little to do, and for that reason it was dissolved.
Even when the Council was set up, it was not thought necessary to make statutory provision for it. But that is the object of the new Clause. If under the Acts of 1940, 1945 and 1950 it was not thought necessary to introduce statutory provision for the council, I suggest that it is hardly necessary to do so today. The implementation of the Bill must be left, as heretofore, to the Secretary of State of the day to decide what he needs in the way of advice and help.
In the Colonial Office we have a great many advisory committees, some 20 or 25 in number, including committees on agriculture, education, a colonial economic research committee and committees concerned with fisheries, colonial geology and mineral resources, insecticides and a great many other committees, any of which is capable of dealing with matters that arise from plans and schemes of colonial development and welfare.
I share very much the apprehension of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Sir A. Colegate) to the suggestion of the


right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), that because of the political significance of these matters we ought not to have a body consisting of unofficial persons in this country to advise the Secretary of State. That seems to me to be an entirely new theory and dangerous from the constitutional point of view.

Mr. Dugdale: The hon. Member for Burton (Sir A. Colegate) perhaps did not know, as the Minister will know, that the committee in question was inside the Colonial Office and was presided over, I believe, by the Minister of State himself. It does not publish outside reports to all and sundry.

Mr. Hopkinson: It was presided over by the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Committee should deal with such matters as population trends, which schemes should receive priority, priorities between territories, strategic implications, the claims of one territory as against another, investment of funds, and so on. This covers a field which certainly ought not to be entrusted to a committee consisting of outside people, however eminent and well qualified they may be. For this reason, I ask the Committee not to accept the new Clause but to leave it to the Secretary of State, should he at a later stage decide that an economic advisory committee of some sort would be helpful to him, to set it up himself.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We put down the new Clause to ascertain from the Minister what machinery was available in the Colonial Office to afford the Minister and the Department such advice as the Secretary of State thought desirable. It is for the Secretary of State to decide to set up the committee without coming to the House. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) did that when in office.
I am inclined to agree that at this stage the functional committees dealing with particular problems and with research into certain aspects may be more helpful than a general advisory committee, but I urge one thing upon the Minister. In the early days when the project began, the scheme was a new venture. A good deal of experience has been gained, partly by the Colonial Office and also by the people on the spot. It may be physically impracticable to have committees drawn from

the territories themselves to sit at frequent intervals and tender advice on how the schemes are progressing.
9.45 p.m.
I feel that, more and more, in all these schemes we must draw upon the experience of the people in the territories. Let us consider the changes which have taken place since 1945. In a good many of the territories which have not yet reached full Dominion status or self-government there are Ministers who deal specifically with economic affairs. For example, a Minister in the Gold Coast is responsible in his country for economic development, and there are Ministers responsible for social development. There are similar cases in Nigeria and in Malaya—or there will be very shortly—and in the Caribbean, and we have just seen new Ministers appointed in Jamaica.
In the matter of machinery we need more regular, continuous consultation between the Secretary of State and the Colonial Office at home and the Ministers and the Governments which are developing in the Colonial Territories. I suggested last year, before we had a Bill, that there should be a colonial conference to discuss the experience of working these schemes, so that the benefit of that experience should be available to us before the Bill was framed. I am sorry that such a conference was not called. We are entering a stage in which we must get together more frequently and have more discussions. We on this side of the Committee put forward our Amendment in order that we might discuss this problem of machinery and consultation. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to ways and means by which the valuable experience of men on the spot in the territories, officials and Ministers, may be made available to us.
In the next five years we shall see big constitutional changes in the Colonial Territories. More and more Ministers will be appointed and will have more and more power, and the more we can get together and consult the better. I hope that the Minister will give some consideration to that point in this new setting. The experience which we have gained may have shown that the appointment of the kind of committee which is suggested in the Amendment is not now the best means of achieving our aim, but increasingly in the future we shall need ways


and means by which people in the territories may be consulted.
The "Manchester Guardian" said very truly that more and more initiative in Colonial matters is passing from this country out to the Colonies. We should indeed welcome that, because the more initiative passes out there the more we are succeeding in our major policy of their achieving independence. I hope that the Minister will consider very carefully the suggestions which we have made. I hope that he will be sympathetic towards what is one of the greatest needs today—the need for machinery by which the experience gained by people on the spot in the territories, official and unofficial, and the experience gained in this country can be pooled for the benefit of the colonial peoples and ourselves.

Mr. Hopkinson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for offering to withdraw the new Clause. I could not commit my right hon. Friend at this stage to anything like a formal conference, but I will certainly undertake to recommend to him that we should adopt the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion—the lines of which indeed we follow as much as we can at the moment—that we should increase the means of consultation

by personal visits to this country of Ministers from elsewhere, and so on.
As the right hon. Gentleman says, it is perfectly true that the initiative in a certain sense is passing from London to other new capitals. One has to remember in connection with colonial development and welfare that as that initiative passes in some cases we can hope that the new territory will be able to stand on its own feet to a great extent. The need for consultation, therefore, concerns the poorer territories far more than those which have new constitutions. I shall bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said and we shall make the best use we can of existing means of consultation.

Mr. Dugdale: In view of the conciliatory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion and Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

IMPORT DUTIES (SUBSTITUTION)

Import Duties (Substitution) (No. 1) Order, 1955 (S.I. 1955, No. 108), dated 21st January, 1955 [copy presented 25th January,], approved.—[Mr. Low.]

COASTAL FLOODING (ACREAGE PAYMENTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Draft Coastal Flooding (Acreage Payments) Scheme, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st December, be approved.—[Mr. Nugent.]

9.51 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. When you called the Minister of State, Board of Trade, just now, I rose to my feet before you put the Question but I did not catch your eye. It may be that you were attending so closely to the Order itself that you did not see that I had risen. I should be very grateful if I might say a word on that Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrews): If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had drawn my attention to the fact that he had risen, I should have called him. Upon which Order is it that the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to speak?

Major Legge-Bourke: I wish to speak upon the Import Duties Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that nothing can now be done. We have now passed that point. I am sorry. I went very quickly. It is perhaps my fault, but we have now passed the Order. I apologise.

Major Legge-Bourke: I would not, of course, question your Ruling for one moment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but might I point out with great respect that when these Orders come before the House there is very little opportunity for anyone to have any say upon them? If this opportunity is not given, it will be very difficult for anybody to do anything with a view to amending the Orders in future or preventing a similar Order from being presented.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I realise what the hon. and gallant Gentleman says. I had not realised that anybody wanted to speak on the Order. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had said "Mr. Deputy-Speaker" or something of that sort, it would have attracted my attention.

Hon. Members: The hon. and gallant Gentleman did so.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that I did not hear him. However, I have explained the position now, and I am very sorry for what has happened. The Question is—

Mr. George Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I do not want to exhaust my right to speak at the moment, but are we not to have any comment from the Minister upon this Scheme and the previous Order?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The Scheme was moved before the right hon. Gentleman came into the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I take it that it is the Coastal Flooding Scheme which is now being referred to.

Mr. Ede: It is true, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the Scheme was moved by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary nodding his head, but that should not prevent him from telling any hon. Member who desires to know about the Order what is in it. Even if moving the Scheme counted as a speech, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has the right to make a second speech.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary does not need to make a speech.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. G. Brown: I do not quite know what the Parliamentary Secretary expects to gain by taking this attitude. He is moving a Scheme which continues a provision that we have now made for three years and on which presumably a great deal of public money has been spent. It is a Scheme which, if I remember rightly, he moved once before in the way in which he has moved it tonight. He succeeded in holding up the House for several hours and then had to withdraw the Order and bring it back again in an amended form. Having seen that that did not help the business of the House or himself, I cannot see why he persists in taking that attitude again.
The history of this matter—and I will speak for a little time to give hint an opportunity to read his brief and make his speech at the end of the debate instead of at the beginning—is that a series


of Schemes, of which this is by no means the first, was made necessary, because of the tragic disaster which faced agriculture and a number of farmers some time ago, because of the effects of our weather and the storms that we had around our coasts.
It was the view of the whole House at that time—and we assisted the Minister very considerably from this side of the House in making into a better Bill a rather inadequate Bill which he first brought before the House—that adequate help should be made available to farmers who were badly affected by the flooding disaster. Since then we have been very interested, not unnaturally, in the results of the help that this House so willingly made available.
I must enter a protest on behalf of the farming community that at the end of another year the Minister deems it proper to proceed to a new Scheme without telling us a single word about how this help has been dispensed to the farmers, whether they are satisfied, whether they have been helped, whether the land is being restored, how much has been restored, how much we have spent to get it restored, on how much land originally inundated crops are now being grown, and whether or not the land has to be held out of cultivation.
There is no section of this country which receives more unfair criticism than our farming community. That is natural enough, in a way. We are a country of over 50 million people and the chief interest in food shown by the bulk of us is in eating it, and only a minority is interested in producing it. That is quite understandable. But the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture comes here and has not sufficient interest in his charge to explain either how much his Department has spent of the taxpayers' money on helping farmers, or what the farmers have done with their help. It is a pretty severe criticism.
I deliberately sought to give him an opportunity, which in the somewhat graceless way which he sometimes chooses to adopt, he tossed aside. To do the farmer a reasonable service and see that his point of view is put, it is not sufficient for the Department that is charged with the job of looking after the interests of agriculture to refuse an opportunity to explain what it is doing and what is going on, or what

the industry is doing. I can only guess that, in fact, the farmers have made a very stout and good job of restoring their land after that disaster.
My guess is that they have put the State help they have had to very good use indeed. My guess is that a lot of fields that might reasonably have still been out of use are already back in use. Why should I be left to guess that? Why should not the Minister have got up and told us if that is the case? Why should not he have said what the farmers have done? This is, once again, a case in which, unless the Opposition—the Labour Party—at the risk of being slightly awkward late at night, stands up for the interests of the farmers, the Government will let the matter go absolutely by default and try to get away with it. [Laughter.] That sort of laughter is no answer.
The simple fact remains that the Minister was presented with two opportunities—indeed, three opportunities, because my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) presented him with one—and he declined to take them. The House is entitled to know, first, as the custodian of the taxpayers' money, the answers to some questions; and, secondly, the House is naturally interested in what our fellows who are charged with the job of farming have tried to do, and how they have made use of the help which the taxpayers of this country have made available to them. I hope that, at the end of this discussion, the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us what has happened.
First, before we proceed to renew the Scheme for yet another year, I hope that the Minister will tell us how many of the acres originally affected have received grants under these Schemes. On how many acres have we paid grants? Secondly, we should be told how much we have spent in each year, and what this measure of public assistance to an important and deserving section of agriculture has cost us in each year.
I am sure that hon. Members opposite who sit for agricultural constituencies, as I do, and who, in some cases, sit for agricultural constituencies which were affected, as I do not, will feel with me that we ought to know what is the total amount so that we bring home to the farmers, who may sometimes think that


they are not supported as they should be, the exact measure of the special help which we gave; and also so that we let the taxpayer know exactly to what he has been committed for this purpose. As far as I know, the figure has not yet been given, and I think we should know what it has cost us, for how many acres we have paid out, and what is the total expenditure in each of the years in which these Schemes have been running.
Thirdly, this Scheme continues a number of provisions, including some for dealing with land that still has to be bare fallow and cannot be cropped. We are now getting some way from the original plan. It would be interesting to know how many of the number of acres originally affected can now be regarded as rehabilitated. I know that originally it was said that this would take four, five, six, or even seven years.
I have, like other hon. Members, a modicum of experience in these matters, and I know that one is apt to overstate a little at the beginning. My guess—and I apologise for doing so much guessing, but the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has forced it upon us—is that some of the land that we originally thought could not come back into cultivation for some time is, in fact, already back, through the special help which we were able to make available.
I should like to know how many of the original acres may now be regarded as rehabilitated. It would be very interesting, and I think a very good thing for the public, both as taxpayers and as consumers, to realise the measure of help given by the original Act, under which these Schemes are presented, because if land was put out of production as the result of flooding and is now back producing food again, it is, quite obviously, par excellence the argument in favour of giving this kind of special assistance, and it removes any argument that it is a subsidy.
If the land is not back in cultivation, which is what we are left to assume in the absence of any answer, then the money given is a straightforward dole or subsidy; if, on the other hand, the land—or some of it—is back in cultivation, it is not a dole or subsidy, but a straightforward act of rehabilitation of our important, indeed vital and precious, raw

material. Therefore, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say how many of the acres are now rehabilitated, for then we shall know, not only how much good the Act has done, but also for how much of the remaining land we have still to face the problem of keeping it bare fallow, and paying, I think it is, £10 an acre as provided under this Scheme.
Further to that point, and as a sort of sub-heading—I will not call it question 5, but perhaps question 4a—I should like to know the total acreage for which the hon. Gentleman's Ministry expects still to pay the bare non-cultivated Grant 4. How much land does he expect—I think that there have been two previous Schemes according to the Explanatory Note, so that this is the third—in the third year, to be out of cultivation altogether, and therefore qualifying for the higher grant made available for such land?
Again, I must guess, but my guess is that it is not very much. I would say that there is very little land going to be out of cultivation this year, and this is why I did not particularly want to exhaust my right to speak by asking questions which ought to have been answered first of all. I think the House is entitled to say to the Parliamentary Secretary that if one is right in one's guess that there is not much, if any, land still out of cultivation, it becomes a question of whether we ought to pass a Scheme which commits us to a fairly high acreage sum for land which is not already cultivated.
It means that we may be voting money which, for the main part, is not needed at all, and which may be misrepresented as an unreasonable cushion by people who do not really understand the position. Therefore, I think that the Parliamentary Secretary ought to make clear how much land he expects to be under cultivation. I hope that other hon. Members who have not been forced, as I have been, to get in ahead of the Parliamentary Secretary, will quiz him rather closely if the answer he gives is what I guess it will be.
These are the kind of questions on which I should have expected that the Parliamentary Secretary would have produced information in introducing this Scheme. We shall watch and listen to the answers which he gives on the subject. I repeat that we on this side of the House are most interested in this. We


share paternity of the Bill with his right hon. Friend, and he will remember that we assisted very considerably in building up the Bill and getting it a very hurried passage through the House, so that it will be seen that our interest in the matter is every bit as great as his.
Some of us on this side of the House have as many friends as he has who are farming under the very difficult conditions left by the disaster of the floods. We shall pay the most close and sympathetic attention to the answers which he gives. If he can show that this Scheme in its present form is still required for a third year, we shall most willingly agree to it, because we on this side—and this is most appropriate coming after a colonial development and welfare debate—perhaps rather more than some of his hon. Friends, are very concerned indeed about the food production situation in the world.
I have just come back from a short visit to what was hitherto one of the largest food-producing countries in the world. I spent a very short while in the Argentine. What I saw there made me more sure than before I went that the production of the maximum amount of food from our own fields is going to be the saver of this country in the years immediately ahead. The hitherto agricultural producers are industrialising so fast that almost all of them, without exception, are neglecting their agricultural industries in order to do so. Unless we in these islands produce as much food as we can, a very severe situation will face our people. Therefore, any Measure that will bring these inundated fields back into cultivation seems to us to be a very wise, a very proper and a very important Measure. We have more sympathy with this Measure than some other people who are not so convinced as we happen to be on this point.
That is why I have had to press the Minister very hard with these questions. There are two other somewhat minor points which I should like him to answer, if he can find the time. No doubt he has in his possession the answer to the questions which I have just asked, and if on the two minor points which I wish to put to him he has not the answers in his possession but can get them in time for his reply, I shall be grateful for them.

Brigadier Christopher Peto: The right hon. Gentleman says how much more interested in this matter the Opposition are than we on this side? How many Members out of the eight who are representing the Labour Party opposite represent agricultural constituencies?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will one day realise that if agriculture has to be left to the consideration of hon. Members who represent agricultural constituencies, it will have a thin time.

Brigadier Peto: A very thin time on the right hon. Gentleman's side of the House.

Mr. Brown: The great hope for agriculture is that Members who sit in this House for industrial and urban constituencies will stand up for agriculture. Let us realise that. We in the Labour Party, although we represent a large number of industrial and urban electors, are fortunately fighting for a good policy for British agriculture. That is the great difference between us and the party opposite in which only those Members who sit for agricultural constituencies take that view.
The two minor questions which I wish to put to the Minister are these. Paragraph 8 relates to the reduction, withholding and recovery of acreage payments. We had a short discussion about this on an earlier Scheme, and I should like to know whether, in practice, it has proved necessary to use that paragraph at all, and, if so, to what extent. The other question is: how many of those who hitherto had received the full grant can now be given a somewhat lower grant on the ground that although their fields are back in cultivation they are not producing a full crop, and whether this Order gives the Minister the power to pay something between the full grant, if the land is not back in cultivation at all and no grant, if it is back? There may be cases where some cultivation is going on and some payment ought to be made, but where it would be unreasonable to pay too much. I should like to know whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that there are any such cases, and whether he has power under the Scheme to deal with them.
I hope that I have said enough. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I think it is


extraordinarily foolish for the hon. and gallant Member for Devon, North (Brigadier Peto) to take that line and to let his constituents know that, after a quarter of an hour's debate and because it is after 10 p.m., he is in such a hurry to get rid of this important agricultural Scheme. He is already demanding that the debate should not go on.
I hope that I have said enough to show that this Scheme is, in our view, a most important one—important to the agricultural community and important to the consuming population of our country who depend so much on agriculture—and I hope that the Minister will be good enough, perhaps without waiting for the rest of the debate, to offer some observations and possibly answer the question which I have asked him, so that the subsequent debate may proceed in a rather better informed way than it could possibly do without that information.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Denys Bullard: I represent a constituency where there is a good deal of land which was flooded in the 1953 floods, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) on at least one point—that this is a very important Scheme. I have one question which I should like to ask my hon. Friend. Before doing so, I would stress one point about these payments, which, I think, has not been sufficiently stressed so far.
One of the dangers about this land which was flooded in 1953 was that it would be entered on too soon and cultivated. I think a lot of farmers would very much like to get on with cropping on this land but have been prevented from so doing by the official advice given to them. These payments have been absolutely necessary if that land is to be treated in the right way.
The question which I should like to ask is this. Undoubtedly some of the land which was flooded in 1953 has not been as well drained of the salt water as has other land. I know that from my own experience. I am not quite sure what criterion is used by the Ministry of Agriculture in judging whether these payments should be continued or not. Is it the state of the land that is judged by practical people who are in a position to

decide whether it is completely recovered or not; or is it a matter of analysis of the salt content?
I think it is very important for the proper working out of this Scheme that land which requires continuation of the payments should have them, but that land which has recovered should come out of the lists. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to tell me what standard is used and who is actually in a position to say whether the land is recovered or not or whether it requires further treatment.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Nugent: By leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.

Mr. Ede: On a point of order. I understand that this is a positive Motion and that the hon. Gentleman has the right to make a second speech without asking for leave. A habit has been growing up of late with Ministers in the position of making a second speech to ask for the leave of the House, and it would be as well if we could have the position defined.

Mr. Speaker: It is quite clear that the hon. Member moved a substantive Motion and has the right of reply without asking for the leave of the House. It is sometimes difficult for hon. Members to distinguish between a substantive Motion and an Amendment or a Motion on a Bill to which different considerations apply.

Mr. Nugent: May I reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard), who asked me about the criterion used for judging whether acreage payments are justified on salt damaged land. There can be no very precise standards, but the main standard is actually the physical condition of the land which can be observed, and the scientific standard applied with it is to take an analysis of the soil and calculate the salt content. If it exceeds ·1 per cent. it is regarded as so seriously damaged with salt as to warrant payment for rehabilitation.
I can assure my hon. Friend that payments are most carefully assessed, and although in some cases good crops were grown on some land last year, that was more the result of the unexpectedly wet weather than the normal prediction of what might be expected in land of that condition. I can assure my hon. Friend


that nothing is likely to be wasted in that way.
In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), I should like to say about his strictures directed at me personally that if it had not been for a point of order raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) the adoption of the Scheme which I have moved would have been assented to by the House before the right hon. Gentleman came in. His strictures, therefore, on my discourtesy to the House were really aimed very far from the target.
I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his customary skill in attacking when he is in a weak position, and doing his best to uphold the agricultural cause on his side of the House where it is now a little thinly represented. However, I am very pleased to answer his questions and to say, in reply to his further strictures on myself, that on no occasion when it has been my duty to move anything have I not been forthcoming in answering any questions the House might desire, and giving all the information required.
He first asked what acreage had up to date received grants. In the first of the two years since 1953, about 150,000 acres received payment—50,000 acres of tillage and about 100,000 acres of pasture. The sum expended was about £1¼ million. In the second year—1954—there was a small reduction of, I should think—we have not the precise figure yet—some 10,000 to 12,000 acres. The cost was £1 million plus. We have not yet the final figures but it was slightly over £1 million.
For the year to which this Scheme would apply I cannot give the House precise figures. The best we can do is to say that about 42,000 acres of tillage and about 75,000 acres of pasture will qualify for rehabilitation acreage payments. It will mean a reduction over last year of about 20,000 to 25,000 acres. We therefore see in the first year about 10,000 acres put back into cultivation, and, in the second, something over 20,000—slow progress, but I will say a word in conclusion about the general problem with which we are contending here.
The right hon. Gentleman next asked how much bare land there will be in 1955. I am afraid that I cannot give him

a precise figure. The acreage payments which we have scheduled this time allow for a payment of £10 an acre for land which must be left bare in the judgment of our experts as being the best thing for it. Here I should say that no farmer is anxious to leave his land bare, and one of our great problems is to get farmers to leave land bare that should be left so. To leave it bare means applying gypsum and keeping down the weeds, and it is difficult to restrain farmers from growing some sort of crop. I can assure the House that every field is inspected. A schedule is drawn up with each farmer—and agreed with him—as to what is to be done on that land. If the farmer is to qualify for the acreage payment he must carry out, or refrain from carrying out, the cultivation.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked a question with regard to paragraph 8, which deals with the withholding of payments. That paragraph was put in to give my right hon. Friend the Minister power, where necessary, to withhold payments. There have not been many cases—I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a specific number but there have been a few—where farmers have not been willing to carry out, or refrain from carrying out, the operations which we have felt were right on any particular field. I am sure the House would agree that, where we are paying out large sums of the taxpayers' money, we must insist on the field being properly cultivated, properly cropped and so on if the farmer is to qualify. I am glad to say there have been very few cases and that, in the main, farmers have been only too willing to co-operate.

Mr. Brown: Could the Parliamentary Secretary find out the number?

Mr. Nugent: I will see if I can discover precisely what the number is, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there have been very few cases. I have only had reports from one county, where difficulty did arise in one case.
In his last question the right hon. Gentleman asked whether there was some land which could qualify for some grant but not for the full rate of grant. The House will have observed that we have very much simplified the schedule of payments this year. We have cut out the high price horticultural crops and we


have simplified the schedule of payments to two rates of £10 and £6. The £6 rate is applicable to pasture land which is still damaged but has some use, and the £10 rate applies where a crop is to be grown or land is to be re-seeded or where it is to be left bare fallow. With those two rates, I think we have sufficient flexibility to ensure that money is properly spent. I think I have covered the main questions that have been asked.
May I say in conclusion that there is a difficult problem here. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we had not been a little pessimistic to start with in thinking of a seven years period. I think we shall undoubtedly want seven years in which to rehabilitate the very heavy Essex clays. We find that we have got something quite exceptional there, something which is much more difficult to deal with than anything the Dutch have ever seen, and it responds very slowly to the treatment that we can give it. The treatment is, broadly, to spread annually on it gypsum which penetrates to a shallow depth and gradually restores the soil structure. The penetration in heavy clay is a matter of only a few inches a year, so that it will be a slow process rehabilitating the soil to a depth of two feet.
On the lighter land good progress has been made and some good crops were grown last year. If it was a good summer for growing anything at all, it was good for growing crops on salt land because the effect of the salt is such that the roots cannot penetrate the deeper soil which had its structure spoilt by the salt. It runs together like glue and, therefore, the roots spread out sideways and have a shallow growth. In a normal summer the roots would dry out and wither. Last year in many places we had rather better crops than we had expected. In a normal summer when we can rejoice in the sunshine, some of the crops may not be so good.
Progress is satisfactory in a very difficult job. The farmers are coping with what is a long and very difficult task for some of them, and it is heartbreaking to see the slow progress. But I can assure the House that the money is being well spent. We are making progress as quickly as can be expected in this difficult matter, and I hope with that assurance that the House will give its approval.

Resolved,
That the Draft Coastal Flooding (Acreage Payments) Scheme, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st December, be approved.

PURCHASE TAX (PEDAL CYCLE MOTOR UNITS)

10.28 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move,
That the Purchase Tax (No. 1) Order, 1955 (S.I. 1955, No. 100), dated 19th January, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.
This is the first occasion on which I have had the distasteful duty of asking the House to approve the imposition of a tax, and that makes me all the more regretful that the task should fall to me.
I want, in as few words as possible, to explain the necessity for this Order, and I hope to convince the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is acting in no vindictive spirit nor from any desire to extract the uttermost farthing from the hard-pressed taxpayer. He is simply animated by a desire to remove what otherwise might have become a most awkward anomaly.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, replying to a Question by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) on 25th January, said:
The Purchase Tax Orders which have just been laid before Parliament"—
of which this is one—
are in each case designed to deal with special situations which have come to my notice and which need to be rectified without delay."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1955; Vol. 536, c. 8.]
I think I can best help the House by seeking to explain what the special situation was which necessitated the imposition of Purchase Tax at the rate of 25 per cent. on motor attachments for pedal cycles.
The House will be aware that motor cycles and pedal cycles are subject to Purchase Tax under group 35 at the rate of 25 per cent. Up to 24th January, however, there had been no tax on those attachments which one can buy if one wishes to help oneself along on one's push bike. I have every reason to sympathise with those people who wish to


buy something of that kind, because my constituency is on a hill, and as a boy I learned to ride a bicycle in north-west London. I think all who can assist themselves in getting about north-west London by attaching one of these motor appliances to their push bikes are lucky.
The reason why these attachments have hitherto been free of tax is that when Purchase Tax was first imposed, during the war, 13 or 14 years ago, to all intents and purposes there was no manufacture or sale of these appliances in this country. Consequently, they were not covered by the Purchase Tax Schedules. Up to the present, indeed, people who have bought them have been fortunate, because if one looks at the general principles and general shape of the Purchase Tax one can see that these would normally have been expected to come within the field of the tax.
But they were not then on sale, and no action was taken in the years after the war to bring them within the taxable field. Complaints arose from time to time from those people who manufactured and sold motor cycles and auto-cycles that this was unfair tax discrimination against them. Nevertheless, the gap between the two seemed so wide that it was hard to accept the argument that unfair competition was thus created.
In recent months, however, the situation has somewhat changed. Manufacturers have begun to make and put on to the market a new machine, a factory-assembled pedal cycle with the motor attachment as an integral part. No longer need one buy separately the push bike and the motor attachment. Now, for the first time, one can purchase the whole thing in one. This brought to the fore a Purchase Tax difficulty. What was to be the Purchase Tax treatment of this new factory-assembled article?
At first it was thought that it should be taxed only as a pedal cycle, and that the motor attachment, which of course was the most expensive component of the whole, could remain free of tax, but on further examination it became perfectly clear that that was a misreading of the law, and that, under the law as it stood, it was essential to impose tax on the whole article. That being so, a new form of anomaly was liable to arise.
If a person buys a factory-assembled article, he will have to pay tax at 25 per cent. on the whole thing, but if no action had been taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the alternative course would have been open to anyone to buy the pedal cycle, subject to 25 per cent. tax, and then to buy separately the motor attachment, which would have remained free of tax, and to fit the two together, and thus obtain a tax advantage of about £5.
There is no doubt that the manufacturers of the integrated machine—which, I think, everybody will agree was likely to be a more workmanlike product of British industry in its entirety in comparison with the alternative, which was for the purchaser to fit the bicycle and the attachment together—would have had a genuine complaint against the tax structure in that they would have incurred an extra tax burden of, say, £5 per machine. This was the special situation to which my right hon. Friend referred in his answer to that Question. Clearly, the situation could not be ignored, and a decision of some kind was needed.
Three different courses were open to us. One would have been to do nothing at all, but that would have led to perpetuating the anomaly whereby the factory-assembled machine would have suffered the extra £5 tax burden which would have been avoided if the customer had bought the bicycle and the attachment separately. That would have been a clear and undeniable tax anomaly.
A second course for my right hon. Friend would have been to submit to this House an order that would somehow have exempted from taxation the motor part of the integrated bicycle. It would have been an extremely difficult order to draft, and indeed it would have been a most unusual application of the Purchase Tax. Moreover, that would have perpetuated another kind of anomaly. Undoubtedly, there would have been criticism from the manufacturers of light motor cycles and auto-cycles that the Purchase Tax was discriminating against them and giving an undue favour to this new machine, which is in effect a strengthened pedal cycle with a motor attachment built into it. So that seemed to be no satisfactory solution either.
The third course open to my right hon. Friend was the one which he adopted. That is to say, he came to the conclusion that the right course was to treat these motor attachments as, there can be little doubt, they would have been treated had they been on the market at the time Purchase Tax was introduced: that is, to impose on them the same rate of tax as is imposed on pedal cycles and on motor cycles. This will have the effect of removing all the anomalies. It will also—and no one regrets it more than myself—have the effect of increasing, by sums that seem likely to range from £3 10s. to about £5 10s., the cost of buying a motor attachment to one's own push bike.
I have said that this step is proposed through no desire to increase the revenue at the expense of those people who, very reasonably, wish to buy and use these attachments. What I must say in fairness is that those who have bought them in the past have made a good bargain. They have been fortunate, and the manufacturers have also been lucky. I say nothing whatsoever against them. Quite rightly, they have taken advantage of their good fortune. But I hope that what I have said will convince not only the House but all those would-be purchasers or would-be manufacturers that a situation has arisen which the Chancellor could not ignore, and that it was necessary to take some action now that would remove all risk of tax discrimination for the future.
Before it approves the Order or otherwise, the House is entitled to know the tax yield. At present the tax yield from motor cycles and pedal cycles is about £5 million a year. The estimated additional revenue from bringing these motor attachments within the tax field is £200,000 a year, or an increase of only about 4 per cent. on the tax from that source. I hope that I have made a somewhat complicated and technical subject as clear as I can to the House in a short time. Although this tax is undoubtedly a burden which both the purchasers and the manufacturers will be reluctant to contemplate, nevertheless my right hon. Friend feels convinced that in the circumstances it is the only course that can be taken. I hope that I have said enough to convince the House that no other solution would have been permanently satisfactory.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: It is always agreeable to the House when a Minister appears in a white sheet and apologises for introducing a new tax. But while the Minister was explaining in a great deal of detail all the different courses which the Government might have taken in this difficulty, it passed through my mind that the one course which I should have thought would have leaped to his mind first, as it certainly did to the minds of those of us on this side of the House, was that of getting rid of the Purchase Tax on bicycles altogether.
Although the Minister explained the three other courses which had been discused in the Treasury, it appeared that that course had not been discussed. Therefore, I think it is fair that we should invite the Minister to consider this matter with a view to seeing whether or not the Treasury can afford the concession of this sum of £5 million a year which we are told the Treasury at present receives from the taxation of pedal cycles and motor cycles.
I am raising one or two questions on this subject largely because of the representations which I have received from constituents and others about the application of this tax. It is extraordinary that this rather miserable Order should have been presented, when one looks back upon the great pressure that was exerted by hon. Members opposite for the abolition of Purchase Tax in the years when the revenue from it was vital. Indeed, I should have thought that there was still great pressure on the subject from hon. Members opposite.
After all, this tax means that many workpeople who are today buying these contraptions—for perhaps that is all we can describe them as being—are now being forced to pay £5 or £6 more because of the tax which is being imposed. Although we have been told that anomalies exist—as obviously they do at present—it is quite wrong to assume that the Order gets rid of those anomalies. There is still the anomaly that if one goes to the trouble of assembling the bicycle by buying the untaxed parts separately, the one item which will be subject to tax will be the motor which is added to the self-assembled cycle.
So, although the Financial Secretary can claim that he has got rid of some


anomalies by adding this new tax, he certainly has not got rid of the lot; because there is this remaining anomaly that, of all the items which a man can use for the purpose of assembling his own machine, the motor is now to be the only one which, by itself, is to be taxable. There we have a remaining anomaly which is particularly harsh to the people using these little machines.
And who are the people using them? They are people who go some distance to work and who find these machines convenient. I have heard of curates using them for the purpose of getting around parishes, and of some schoolmasters using them in order to get to their schools. Is it desirable that we should add this rather petty nuisance to all the other taxes which people have to meet?
Then, I should like some answer on the major point. What does the introduction of this tax really mean; is it that the Government have no intention of removing the Purchase Tax on cycles and motor cycles for some time to come? I ask that because it would be ridiculous if, after the Government had introduced this new tax, they then announced, in a fairly short period of time that they were removing the whole tax.
I wonder whether we could ask the Financial Secretary to suggest to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should abolish Purchase Tax in this field? If he could do that I can assure him that he would get a much greater welcome from this side of the House than he will receive for this rather petty and miserable tax for which he seeks the support of his hon. Friends tonight.

10.48 p.m.

Sir Arthur Colegate: There are one or two things which I should like to say about this Order, but, before I do so, I should declare that I am largely interested in the manufacture of bicycle accessories, although not this particular accessory. I have stated such interest as I have, and I would say that, so far as the Order is concerned, I think that there is a little more to be said than has been said about the origin of this new tax.
As I know the circumstances, the origin of it is that the makers of motor cycles,

feeling that this little fellow might grow into a motor cycle, and fearing that they would be facing competition which, quite frankly, they do not suffer at the present time, decided to suggest action. I do not want to weary the House with technical details about these little motors, but they are of fifty cubic centimetres, or less, while the motor cycle is of a hundred cubic centimetres, or more—usually more.
The people who promoted this change are sorry now because they see that there would have been a very much better way of dealing with the matter than by means of Purchase Tax. All that had to be done was to limit these little engines, which have been tax-free for so long, to fifty cubic centimetres; and then there would have been no competition with the "built-in" motor cycle; and, what is more, there would have been great benefit to the working population.
We talk about the traffic problem and about the buses, the trams, and the trains, but is it realised that the majority of working people do not go to work by any of those means of conveyance? The vast majority go by bicycle. There are 26½ million bicycles in the country, and they form a very considerable factor in relation to the solution of the traffic problem. The attachments increase the speed of bicycles from 10–12 m.p.h. to 25 m.p.h., and if bicycles move at 25 m.p.h. instead of 12 m.p.h., that materially assists from the traffic point of view.
With regard to Purchase Tax, there is always the difficulty that one cannot consult the trade beforehand. Because of that, a large number of the little machines, in a half-finished condition, are waiting to be fixed. The manufacturers have received many cancellations of orders, and at the moment the position is chaotic. Yet the difficulty could have been avoided by limiting the cubic capacity of the engine.
I realise that the matter is now done and that one cannot expect the Treasury to alter the position. This manufacture is still a very small affair which has grown up without taxation. At a time when we ought to be thinking not of increasing but of reducing Purchase Tax, it is a bad precedent that a 25 per cent. tax should suddenly be imposed on this small manufactured article.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I want, in a few sentences, to support what has just been said by the hon. Member for Burton (Sir A. Colegate)—that there might have been some possibility of imposing a limitation of the capacity of the motor attachments to bicycles. From what I have seen of them, they are an aid to cyclists for hill climbing more than anything else; cyclists do not get a great deal of assistance from them in level riding.
I rose principally to say that it is rather amazing that the Financial Secretary, on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should appear almost to be rushing to impose this additional tax. We have, of course, come to regard the Government as a high-tax Government. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be rushing in because he wanted to ensure equity. We find many anomalies in the taxation system, and I could suggest to the Chancellor some anomalies still remaining to which his attention has been directed in succeeding Budget debates, and to which he will have his attention directed again in the forthcoming Budget discussions. There are, for instance, anomalies in respect of educational stationery, Christmas cards, and grave anomalies in all kinds of sport.
It is rather unfortunate that the announcement of the 25 per cent. tax on motor attachments to bicycles should be synchronised with the announcement of a reduction in the tax on mink coats from 75 to 50 per cent. I imagine that it did not go down well among ordinary working-class folk, especially those who find the use of a motor attachment to a bicycle of great benefit. After all, the attachments are very largely used as a means of propulsion for people to get to work. Generally speaking, they are not used for pleasure, as motor cycles or motor cars are. This is a tax upon the ordinary working people, and we ought to protest against it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) said that he was doubtful whether the Chancellor realised just what he was doing in this case. I do not share my hon. Friend's optimism. I believe the Chancellor knows quite well, and realises he cannot make reductions of Excess Profit Tax or Income Tax, or even tax on mink coats, unless he recovers the

money from some other source. There are many millions of working men and women who use bicycles, so it offers itself as a very ready source of revenue to the Chancellor. It may help him to make more bountiful gifts to his own friends. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, that is what I believe, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will listen to the pleadings of the hon. Member for Burton, and will take this Order back and have another look at it, because, as the hon. Member said, it would be a comparatively simple thing to put a limit on the capacity of the engine, and remove such motors from tax altogether.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I share the regret which this Order will inspire in the breasts and pockets of those who are to be hit by it. They will be hit to the extent of three or four pounds for a cycle, and will be deprived of some of the enjoyment of the poor man's jet-propelled Rolls-Royce. They will be hit in a peculiarly unpalatable way, because they have for some time, since the first appearance of these machines, been perfectly legally getting away with something, and there is nothing more unpalatable than to have been doing that and then to be stopped.
It will be to them a very rueful reflection that they are the victims of clearing up a tax anomaly. Those who are hit are an extremely valuable and worthy section of the community, for they are relieving the strain on public transport and, quite properly, enjoying the rising prosperity of this nation, for which my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend are so largely responsible.
But at the same time I think we must be fair. I am not a representative of the bicycle manufacturing or motor manufacturing industries, but I cannot help seeing what a hopeless muddle and what hopeless inequities would arise if one tried to distinguish between the taxable "assembled" and the untaxable "unassembled" motor bicycle. Therefore, I feel that if one is to accept Purchase Tax at all one must accept it, lock, stock, and barrel—a pretty sticky lock, a pretty cracked stock, and a pretty crooked barrel. But one must accept it for what it is.
So I believe that this Order can be criticised, but that the criticism must go


beyond the detail. The criticism is properly aimed at Purchase Tax as a whole, which my hon. Friend's colleague, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, has called the traders' curse and the Treasury's cow. I identify this as the logical and sustainable line of criticism with some diffidence, because I think it would become me better if I were able, while doing so, to offer a painless alternative to the tax that I am condemning.
One has to recognise that £300 million a year raised by Purchase Tax makes a substantial contribution to the extra social services which the people of this country are enjoying now—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think we can go further than motor bicycles now.

Mr. Iremonger: I naturally accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I am glad to have got away with as much as I did. I think we must recognise that Purchase Tax, however much we may have to acquiesce in the details of it, is the least acceptable and the least equitable of taxes.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot get away with anything more.

Mr. Iremonger: In that case I will now resume my seat, merely saying that I hope that successive Chancellors of the Exchequer will no longer have to rely on devices of this kind, although we must accept this one on this occasion.

11.1 p.m.

Brigadier Terence Clarke: About 20 per cent. of my constituents go to work every day on this type of assisted cycle. They pay Purchase Tax on the cycle, Purchase Tax on the tyres, and a very high tax on the petrol that they use in these machines. The small amount of assistance and pleasure they get in going to work easily should not be denied them by this new and unnecessary tax, which will yield very little money to the Exchequer. I hope that the Government will rescind this tax, which is not a good one to impose.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. H. Brooke: I take no exception to the fact that criticisms have been expressed from all sides of the House,

because I myself regard the general level of taxation as far too high, and I should feel that the House of Commons was indeed at fault if it allowed any imposition of tax to go through without searching criticism. I owe it to the House to make a few remarks in reply to the points raised.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) suggested that the right solution would be to remove tax altogether from bicycles and motor cycles. The right solution for many of our tax troubles would be to remove the tax altogether. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the present time has to raise some £4,500 million a year and if we start cutting £5 million here, we shall find that to avoid other anomalies we have to cut £10 million elsewhere, and so it will go on. There is no easy solution by saying this or that chunk of manufacture should be freed from tax, and I am sorry to have to say so.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Are we to understand that the national finances are in so precarious a state that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot afford £5 million for this particularly deserving object?

Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to tempt me on to Budget ground. I said at the outset that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated to the House that these limited tax proposals were to deal with a special situation which he felt should be rectified without delay.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Sir A. Colegate) suggested that the right solution was to draw a dividing line and keep free of tax those cycles which carried engines of 50 cubic centimetres capacity, or less. That is a very interesting thought. It is, in fact, contrary to the policy, that has hitherto been pursued, of making no differentiation of that kind. My hon. Friend will be aware that, in the taxation of motor vehicles, these motor-assisted vehicles, however small, have been treated as motor cycles rather than as pushbikes. Moreover, his suggestion is not so simple in its practical working as perhaps he led the House to believe.
There is already a motor attachment of 75 cubic centimetres' capacity on the market; and starting, as it were, from the other end, there are also motor cycles,


I am informed, with engines of 100 cubic centimetres fitted with pedals so that the rider may assist, with his own energy, the progress of the cycle up the hill. I mention that simply to show the House how right I was in indicating that there is no clear line of demarcation which can be drawn in this field and permanently held.

Sir A. Colegate: The fact that the size of a motor is defined by its cubic capacity is not affected by whether there are pedals or not. I do not mind whether there are pedals, or not. All I say is that 50 cubic centimetres and below is a reasonable line. The 75 cubic centimetre model has only just come on to the market and there are not many about. Now is the right time to fix the dividing line.

Mr. Brooke: Let me assure my hon. Friend that I do not myself mind whether there are pedals or not. All I am seeking to establish is that it is impossible to draw a line and say that everything on one side of that line is a motor cycle and everything on the other is essentially a pedal cycle.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) accused me of rushing along. This seemed to me to be a direct contradiction of what the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East said, because he described me as appearing in a white sheet. If I wanted to rush, the last thing I should do would be to start by putting on a white sheet. The hon. Member for Bristol, South described this Government as "a high taxation Government," apparently forgetting that since his friends went out of office this Government has reduced taxation by some £500 million a year.
The hon. Member spoke of fairness to working men and others who use these cycles. I hope that in my opening speech I showed full cognisance of what this Order may mean to people who want to use this kind of machine and

have not much money; but there is, as I said, no option. Then he sought to import a bit of class prejudice by suggesting that there was a contrast between this imposition of tax and the reduction by 25 per cent. of the tax on furs; but he failed to mention that in the same Order which affected furs the Chancellor of the Exchequer was removing tax also from household mops, paper serviettes, paper doilies, and shelf papers. I did not know that they were used exclusively by the capitalist classes.
All these changes are designed to remove special difficulties. I hope I have made clear that there is nothing sinister about this Order, though I agree that it is unfortunate that anybody should be required to pay more. I regret that I have to move the Order, but I certainly do not appear in a white sheet in asking the House to approve it.

Mr. Blenkinsop: May I ask the hon. Gentleman, in view of the strong feeling which has been made clear on both sides of the House, whether he will at least say that the Government will consider the points put forward in some detail by the hon. Member for Burton and others, and see whether, perhaps by the time of the Budget, some further statement can be made.

Mr. Brooke: I will certainly say that the Chancellor keeps the Purchase Tax continuously under review, and has repeatedly made clear that changes in the tax can be made at any time of the year. This will be kept under review, like all the other Purchase Tax goods and Schedules.

Mr. Blenkinsop: And especially the points raised?

Resolved,
That the Purchase Tax (No. 1) Order, 1955 (S.I., 1955, No. 100), dated 19th January, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.

U.N.I.C.E.F. (UNITED KINGDOM CONTRIBUTION)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Younger: I rise to make a plea for the United Nations Children's Fund, which is commonly known as U.N.I.C.E.F. I shall ask for more consideration for its needs. In particular I shall ask for a United Kingdom Government contribution which will be more in line with the proportion we observe in our contributions to other organisations, especially those connected with the United Nations.
This Fund is one of a relatively small number of international organisations for which no regular assessment is made upon the contributors. It depends on a fresh voluntary pledge being made each year by each contributor, and that inevitably creates a great deal of uncertainty for it in planning ahead, as anybody can see who will look at the graph of the United Kingdom contributions over the past few years, which have a positively Himalayan appearance.
I would freely acknowledge that the highest peak of the Himalayas would come in 1954, because in 1954 the United Kingdom contribution was double that of 1953, which, in its turn, had been double that of 1952. These percentages and the multiplication factors are rather deceptive because they did start from low levels in 1951 and 1952.
My concern tonight is not to refer very much to the past nor to recriminate about it, but to consider what are the reasonable current needs of this Fund, and to argue that unless the United Kingdom is prepared to do something more it is unlikely that these needs can be met from any other source. I want further to argue that a pretty substantial increase in the United Kingdom contributions would still do no more than put the United Nations Children's Fund in a reasonable position in the table of contributions which this country makes to United Nations Bodies.
I do not think I need spend very much time in singing the praises of the United

Nations Children's Fund as an organisation. The purpose—to help children all over the world—is one which gains universal sympathy, and quite apart from that, I think it is recognised as perhaps the finest type of long-term investment for progress in backward territories. I believe moreover that U.N.I.C.E.F. has a record of effectiveness and of administrative economy which very few international organisations can match and probably none can surpass.
Indeed, there have been few more eloquent tributes than that paid to it in the speech of Mrs. Walter Elliot, who was the United Kingdom representative on the Third Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations last November. If the Joint Under-Secretary of State, in replying, were to be rash enough to try to engage in any criticism of the operations of the Fund—which I do not anticipate—I could throw back in his teeth an appropriate quotation on almost any point from Mrs. Elliot's speech, a copy of which I have taken the precaution of having with me.
I am well aware that there are many other international organisations all more or less deserving and all more or less expanding, to which this country contributes, and it is very hard for Her Majesty's Government to decide what is a satisfactory level of contribution in respect of each of these bodies. But I feel that I am on safe ground in saying that the United Nations Children's Fund has ambitions which are exceedingly reasonable. For a year or two past it has aimed at a constant figure of 20 million dollars for its total budget.
That has, of course, not been based on the total need of all the children throughout the world, which would be almost unlimited, but upon the assessment of the requests which it receives from different countries and which it considers to be really high priorities, coupled—and this is very important—with the amount which the Fund thinks these recipient countries can fairly readily match, because, as the Joint Under-Secretary knows, it is one of the principles of the Fund that a contribution which is made by the Fund to a country has to be matched by that country's own contribution from its local resources.
I do not think that the Fund has ever, in fact, got nearer to the 20 million


dollar target than 15 to 16 million dollars, and if it is remembered that hat has to be split up among 80 countries, and that some 30 million children throughout the world have actually been reached in one way or another by the Fund, it will be seen that a total of 20 million dollars, which in some connections is very big, is in this particular connection exceedingly modest. Moreover, inevitably, requests are increasing all the time.
I am told that the target has only been kept within the 20 million dollar figure this year by reducing the provision which is normally put aside for emergencies. This, I am glad to say, was a point particularly stressed by Mrs. Elliot, who congratulated the Fund on its work in connection with various flood and other disasters in different parts of the world. She expressed the view that the Fund should always be provided with sufficient resources to deal with these emergencies, whereas, in fact, think the allocation for such emergencies in the plans of the Fund this year has had to be reduced by about 11 per cent.
For those reasons I think it is very important that the 20 million dollar target—or something approaching it—should be attained. Where is it to come from? In the past the United States has borne by far the greatest burden. Indeed, it has agreed that for every hundred units of contribution it is prepared to put up 72 if the whole of the rest of the world will put up 28 units. No one can say that that is not a generous undertaking.
But for 1954 and for the future, the United States has intimated that, while she does not intend necessarily to be less generous in the total she will give, she now makes her contributions dependent upon a somewhat less favourable proportion—60 to 40 instead of 72 to 28. I do not think that anyone could dispute that this is entirely reasonable, but, of course, it means that if the same total is to be reached as before, let alone a still larger one, more must come from non-United States sources.
I believe that for 1954 the funds necessary from countries other than the United States to match the maximum United States contribution had, not been secured by the end of the year, but another two months' grace have been allowed. The last figures I was able to get showed that the total of contributions

from other countries was still about a million dollars short of what would be necessary to attract the full United States contribution.
I am also told that in the coming year there is some reason to hope that the United States will be ready to contribute enough to enable this total target of 20 million dollars to be reached on the 60 to 40 basis. That, of course, would mean that if other nations are prepared to contribute a total of eight million dollars the United States might be prepared to put up 12 million—a total of 20 million. Every dollar by which the rest of the countries other than the United States fall short of the eight million will not only be one dollar less, but will also cause a reduction in the United States contribution.
I think it is right to say that the countries other than the United States have never in the past managed to muster a total of more than about five million dollars; therefore, we are looking for an addition of three million dollars more from countries other than the United States if the target is to be reached. I do not think that this can be expected to come from the recipient countries because they are all, by definition, poor. In any case, as I have said, they are always required to match from their local funds anything they receive, and they have considerable difficulty in doing that. I am told that, on an average over the whole life of the Fund, the matching has been in the ratio of 1½ dollars for every dollar coming from the Fund, which seems to be fairly satisfactory.
The additional sum must, therefore, come from the relatively limited number of economically more powerful countries. If one looks amongst such countries—the Commonwealth particularly, and Western Europe—and compares their contribution to see who might be expected to do more, the finger points inexorably at us. Assessing relative ability to pay is always an uncertain business. There is the national income per head and all sorts of other tests, no one of which is, by itself, valid.
Even taken together the tests cannot be considered wholly accurate. Nevertheless, if all the tests point in one direction they cannot be ignored, and in fact Her Majesty's Government do, broadly, accept the results of such tests in agreeing to their contributions to a large number of


bodies, for which an impartial assessment is made each year. The fact is that by any of these tests the United Kingdom contribution to U.N.I.C.E.F.—even at its present level of £200,000 a year—does not look very good.
As a proportion of the total U.N.I.C.E.F. budget, as we were told only today, in figures which were given earlier, it will come to about 4·32 per cent., and in a long list of United Nations bodies to which we contribute, only the Universal Postal Union gets a smaller proportionate contribution from us. I do not know why the Union receives a small proportionate contribution. It may be because a larger number of countries subscribe to the Universal Postal Union and, therefore, the percentage of any individual country's contribution will be proportionately smaller.
If we compare the proportion with that for technical assistance, we find that in that case the proportion is 7·28 per cent. For the regular budget of the United Nations it is 9·8 per cent. For a variety of Specialised Agencies the figures vary from 6 to 11 per cent., all of them very much larger than the proportion for U.N.I.C.E.F. I think we can leave out of account for this purpose the very special cases of the Korean Agency and the Agency for the Relief of Arab Refugees.
By the test of comparative ability to pay—take, for instance, the burden per capita—we are still well down the list of European countries, and we are even less favourably placed when compared with some of the other members of the Commonwealth. On the basis of proportion of national income our position looks rather better now that we are subscribing £200,000, but even so we cannot claim that our position is very distinguished, and there are certain comparatively small countries in Europe whose records are better than ours.
If we are sincere in our praise of U.N.I.C.E.F.—and all hon. Members on all sides of the House always praise it—and if we regard a 20 million dollar target as not excessive and one which should be reached, I think it is inescapable that our contribution of £200,000 is not our fair share of a burden which ought to be borne, and that it must be increased if the Fund is not to be crippled. I would add

that I think the British example in this matter has a considerable effect upon the willingness of other countries to increase their contributions.
I want to make a final point which is designed to parry an anticipated and quite truthful comment which the Joint Under-Secretary may make—namely, that we have great responsibilities outside the United Nations and particularly to our dependent territories. This, of course, is true, but I think it is not a very strong argument for limiting support for this Fund, because U.N.I.C.E.F.'s contribution to our dependent territories is immense. I believe it has been about 2·9 million dollars from its inception to last September.
Even if we count in all the U.N.R.R.A. residual funds, our total contribution comes to only 3·6 million dollars or about that, so in our dependent territories we have had back almost everything that we have subscribed over this long period. As for last year, I saw an article by Percy Cudlipp in the "News Chronicle" last month which was rather rudely entitled "Sponging on these children," in which the writer said—and I have no reason to doubt that he is correct—that whereas we contributed £200,000 in 1954, in fact £300,000 was spent on children in our dependent territories, and entirely spent on purchases made in Britain.
It is, therefore, very doubtful whether our contribution to this Fund has been a net burden to the country at all. We ought to regard it both as an economical way of contributing to colonial development—economical because others match every dollar we give—and as an international duty which I believe the people of this country are very willing to support.
I therefore ask the Joint Under-Secretary to press the claim of this Fund with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, basing his case, first, on grounds of humanitarian feeling, second, on our international responsibility, and if, as often happens, the Chancellor remains adamant in the face of such arguments, then as sheer good business for this country and her Colonies.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Nicolson: Before my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary replies, I should like in two minutes to echo from these back benches the reasonable


plea which the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) has made. Ultimately, the contributions by our Government to international agencies must depend on our own public opinion, and there is no question that of all the international agencies under the United Nations, it is U.N.I.C.E.F. which has attracted most sympathy from the ordinary citizen. One proof of this has been the remarkable success which the United Nations Association has had in raising for U.N.I.C.E.F. in every town and county of this land a considerable sum from the private pockets of the people.
I will advance only one further argument in addition to what the right hon. Gentleman said. U.N.I.C.E.F., like all the other Agencies, is one which is gaining momentum as it gains experience; and as it gains momentum, obviously its budget should be increased to meet the extra commitments which are becoming due. In the last four years, taking the budget as a whole, there has been no such parallel increase in its revenues.
In 1951, it spent 16½ million dollars, and in 1954, 16·8 million dollars, or practically no difference. If the target of 20 million dollars, which is a very reasonable one, is to be met, it must be met partly, at least, from this country. We are contributing at present £200,000, or precisely the sum which is being raised by tonight's Purchase Tax Order relating to attachments for push bikes; so we are virtually getting the contribution for nothing. I support what the right hon. Member for Grimsby has said, and I ask my hon. Friend whether he can increase our contribution when the time for it next comes round.

11.27 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Hope): The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger), who raised this subject, did so fairly and constructively, and I am grateful to him for that. He said at the outset that he would not speak in terms of recrimination, and he did not. I shall not speak in terms of recrimination either.
The right hon. Gentleman sang the praises of the Children's Fund. He told us that the Fund had an unsurpassed record of administrative success. I endorse wholeheartedly everything he said about what the Fund has done, and I

assure him that he has no need, as far as I or the Government are concerned, to keep any of Mrs. Elliot's thunderbolts in reserve. They will not be needed.
It is very easy to take something of this kind in isolation and to give figures which in themselves are perfectly accurate but to make from those figures a deduction that is not always fair, because it leaves something out in the total account and story. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has done, and what all those, in the House and in the Press, who feel critical about our views have done a little too often. One does not get angry about that, but nevertheless it is a pity that when criticism of this sort is made, it does not seem, in most cases, to take account of so many other sources of help to exactly the same end as that which the Children's Fund has in view.
It is not a debating point to claim that any cause which helps to raise the standard of living of people in undeveloped areas of the world directly helps the luckless children of the world; every such scheme must do that. Therefore, our contribution to several such schemes must be taken into account when our record is under review. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned one or two of these other funds, such as the Korean fund and the Arab refugee fund. He said, "I think that we can leave out these other funds," or words to that effect. I think that we should not leave them out and that, for the record, we should include the very considerable sums which we have contributed towards those funds.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned our contribution to the fund which provides technical assistance. That is a very big figure, and our place in the race against our competitors in that field is a very high one. I agree that if one takes the Children's Fund alone one can produce a statistical argument to show that we are a long way down the field, but that is really only half the story.
It is true that our percentage contribution could not be made to look very large in the case of this Children's Fund although it is fair to say that it would be larger than the right hon. Gentleman makes it if only he were to take into account the amazingly encouraging amount of money which has been raised


for it in this country by voluntary effort. The Government, of course, take no credit for that, though it must be taken into consideration as part of the sum which this country has given to the Fund. It is a remarkable example of generosity on the part of the public.

Mr. Younger: I hope that the noble Lord will not argue that the greater the voluntary enthusiasm in this country the less Her Majesty's Government will contribute.

Lord John Hope: No, of course not. I will not argue anything of the sort. I had to run the risk of the right hon. Gentleman catching me out on that point when I mentioned the figure, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways, and neither can I.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the amount that has been spent by the Fund in the dependent territories. Too many people who criticise us on this point—and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is among them—do not take into account the extent to which the Governments who are receiving the aid have matched U.N.I.C.E.F. allocations from their own resources.
The Executive Board's Report for September, 1954, states:
A more complete picture of the total effort going into these programmes would also include the matching expenditure of Governments. In the past, for every dollar provided by U.N.I.C.E.F. assisted Governments have on the average contributed 1·57 dollars.
There is an encouraging example of a matching contribution being provided by one of our Colonies. Nigeria is providing the sum of £1,231,500 towards the cost

of a five-year scheme to deal with leprosy, which was started in 1953, and to which U.N.I.C.E.F. and W.H.O. are contributing £98,750.
Moreover the matching contributions put up by our Colonial Territories are in part financed by the colonial development and welfare funds which are, of course, a direct charge on the Exchequer of this country. Therefore, it is fair to claim that the £200,000 direct contribution of the United Kingdom to U.N.I.C.E.F. is not the whole story. It was right and fair of the right hon. Gentleman to mention the U.N.R.R.A. residual assets. They also are conveniently forgotten by some of our critics.
By and large, I do not think it is saying too much when we claim that the story of this country ever since the inception of this Fund is a good one. One says that without in the least feeling complacent about it, and, moreover, without wishing to give the impression to the right hon. Gentleman, or to the House that the last word has necessarily been said so far as the future is concerned. Naturally, the Government have to take into consideration every factor that is connected with the expenditure of money by this country, but I say to the right hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's Government will carefully examine the possibility of an increase in 1956 in the light of the available financial resources of this country and our many international commitments.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Twelve o'clock.